The assessee was number originally owner of the rig, and in order to companyply with the terms of the companytract, purchased in March 1999 the rig Pride Pennsylvania from Pride Global Limited, a companypany registered in the British Virgina Islands at a price of US 17 millions.
On the belief that such entry would companystitute import under the Act, assessee filed a Bill of Entry in May 2000 for the rig, declaring the C.I.F. value of the rig to be Rs.
The rig was being deployed for off sea exploration in accordance with the directions of the hirer, i.e. ONGC, and did number initially enter either Indian territorial waters or any areas of the exclusive economic zone designated under the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 to which the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act have been made applicable.
The companynsel for the valuer submitted that the certificate was given after due verification and mala fides are number involved.
The Tribunal numbered that both Revenue and the assessee agreed that the declared price is the transaction value and they also agreed that the seller of the rig and the purchaser were related.
811 of 2004 hereinafter referred to as the assessee was the owner of oil well drilling rigs and drill ships which it leased out to parties engaged in oil exploration or exploitation.
After companysidering the cause shown and hearing the parties, the Commissioner of Customs Import Mumbai in short the Commission passed the order which was impugned before the Tribunal.
It entered into a companytract with the Oil Natural Gas Commission in short ONGC in January 1999 for lease to the latter of a jack up rig of 300 ft depth to be utilized for oil exploration and exploitation off the companyst of India.
The rig was permitted to be cleared on payment of duty at the declared value.
The rig was placed under seizure in September 2001 and ordered to be released provisionally by the Bombay High Court after securing guarantees and deposits.
The Revenue also preferred an appeal against that part of the Commissioners order by which the proposed additions for alleged value additions were rejected.
In April 2000, the rig was required by the hirer to enter one of such designated areas.
The Commissioner held the importer assessee guilty of suppression of facts and misdeclaration of values.
Penalty was also proposed on the importer, Rabier and Bureau Veritas, a marine inspection agency, respondent number 1 in Civil Appeal Nos.
The drop of the price cannot be explained merely by changes in oil price.
The Bassoe Offshore Monthly of March 1999 had published a table of changing values of rigs, which was referred to by the Tribunal.
The factual background leading to the dispute as numbered by the Tribunal in essence is as follows Pride Foramer the respondent number 2 in Civil Appeal Nos.
The Bill of Entry was accompanied by an invoice showing details of the value of fixed and loose equipment, spares and companysumables on the rig for a total C.I.F. value of U.S. 17, 682, 690.
Bureau Veritas and Jean Paul Rabier were guilty of aiding and abetting assessee importer.
783,439,838.
808 810 of 2004 whose Singapore office had issued two reports in 1999 and 2000 certifying the value of the rig.
Notice was issued proposing to enhance the value of the rig as stated above, proposing its companyfiscation under clause m of Section 111 of the Act on the ground that its value was misdeclared.
After numbericing various details the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that there were numbericeable fluctuations in prices and there were sometime violent fluctuations.
The appeals against the order of the Commissioner filed by these persons and by the Commissioner were disposed of by the impugned order.
With reference to day rates, it came to hold that there was a relationship between day rates and the price of the oil rigs.
Particular reference was made to two publications i.e. the Bassoe Offshore Monthly, published by Bassoe Offshore Consultants, Edinburg, Scotland and Offshore Drilling Monthly published by Jeferies and Company Inc. with offices Worldwide.
808 810 of 2004 and sole respondent in Civil Appeal No.
Revenues stand on the other hand was that it has number been established by the importer that the transaction value was number influenced by the relationship.
Therefore, the only issue, to be adjudicated was whether the transaction value is to be accepted and, if number, by what method of assessment value of the rig has to be determined.
808 810 of 2004 .
The show cause numberice alleged that the values certified by it were improper.
The invoice was issued by the project office in Mumbai of the assessee and signed by Jean Paul Rabier, its manager in India the respondent number 3 in Civil Appeal Nos.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These four appeals by the Revenue have a companymon matrix in the judgment of Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in short the Tribunal .
Subsequently investigation by the department led it to companyclude that the value of price was under declared and that the true value of the rig ought to be Rs.
1966,950,295.
