Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2004
Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Gujarat ...Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s. Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The issue for consideration in this Civil Appeal concerns determination of
the value of a ship imported by M/s. Atam Manohar Ship Breakers Ltd. (respondent
herein).
th
On 13 April, 1999, a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was entered into
between the respondent and the seller for importing the vessel for ship breaking. In
the said MoA, the value indicated was USD 9,70,906.23. The ship arrived at
th
Bhavnagar on 19 April, 1999. The Customs Officer boarded the ship for inspection
th
on 20 April, 1999. On the same day, a Survey Report was prepared stating that the
th
vessel was suitable to stay afloat at Alang anchorage. On 20 April, 1999, Entry
st
Inward was given to the vessel. On 21 April, 1999, physical delivery was given by
th
the Master to the respondent. The respondent filed its Bill of Entry on 29 April,
th
1999 in which there was a reference to the MoA dated 13 April, 1999. At this stage,
th
it may be mentioned that, according to the respondent, on 29 April, 1999, an
Addendum
...2/-
CA 146/04..contd..
-2-
th
No.II came to be inserted in the MoA dated 13 April, 1999 which addendum existed
th
on 29 April, 1999 when the Bill of Entry stood filed. By virtue of the said
addendum, the price stood reduced from US$ 9,70,960.23 to US$ 8,70,960.23. To
th
complete the chronology of events, it may be stated that on 28 May, 1999, a
provisional assessment was made which was finalized by the Assessing Officer (AO)
th
on 11 January, 2001 on the basis of the value of the vessel fixed at US$ 9,70,960.23.
The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent to the Commissioner who came
to the conclusion, on the facts of the case, that since the price stood reduced prior to
the filing of the Bill of Entry, that price constituted the value of the vessel.
Accordingly, the Commissioner reversed the order of the AO holding that the value
of the vessel was not US$ 9,70,960.23 but US$ 8,70,960.23. This decision was
confirmed by the Tribunal. Hence, this Civil Appeal.
At the outset, we may state that we are concerned with the facts of the
present case alone. We do not intend to lay down the law in this case. We have not
examined the said question.
We may also point out that in this case we are basically concerned with the
th
genuineness of the addendum to the MoA dated 13 April, 1999. If one looks at the
said
...3/-
CA 146/04..contd..
-3-
addendum, we find that the date on which the said addendum stood executed is not
given. Further, when did the addendum stand incorporated in the MoA. We do not
find the date on which the clause stood inserted in the MoA. Further, the said
addendum does not give any reason for reduction in the price from US$ 9,70,960.23
to US$ 8,70,960.23. Further, the most clinching factor to be seen is that the said
addendum appears to have been executed at the request of the buyer. In our view,
this is a self-serving document. In this connection, it may also be noted that the MoA
th
dated 13 April, 1999 states that the vessel is bought on “as is where is” basis. If that
be the case, we do not know on what basis the value of the vessel stood reduced from
US$ 9,70,960.23 to US$ 8,70,960.23. Lastly, it is stated on record that one of the
items was not in a working condition and by way of damages, the price stood
reduced. It is not so stated in the addendum. If it is the case of damages, then, surely
it would have been so stated in the addendum.
For the afore-stated reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and we
allow this Civil Appeal of the Department with no order as to costs.
...................J.
(S.H. KAPADIA)
...................J.
(B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)
New Delhi,
November 11, 2008.