ORDER This appeal is directed against the order of rejection of appeal by CEGAT, Mumbai. The facts depict that the appellant had placed the order of supply of 20,027 MT Metallurgical Coke of specified size with M/s. Jenson & Nicholson Pvt. Ltd., Singapore at a stipulated price. According to the invoice from the supplier the price of the consignment was shown as US $ 2,143,524.85. The customs duty was assessed accordingly on the value shown in the invoice and goods were cleared by the appel lant on payment of the same. Subsequently, however, on detailed inspection of the material at the plant site, the appellant said to have discovered that the size of the metallurgical coke was not as per the terms of the contract and as such brought them to the notice of the representatives of the foreign supplier with the test report by reason wherefore there was certain diminution in the price. 2. The Tribunal went into the matter in great detail including the revised agreement between the parties on account of materials said to have been defective. The relevant portion of the revised agreement read as below: "Differences have arisen between the parties in relation to the quality and specifications of the said coke supplied particularly about ash, moisture and size and whereas Saukem (i.e. the appellants herein) allege they have suffered losses, and whereas JNS (i.e. the suppliers deny these allegations. As a result of discussions between the representatives of the parties hereto, it has been amicably agreed, without any admission of liability by either party that in consideration of both parties refraining from commencing or proceeding with any legal action against the order in consideration, of the mutual promises and convents contained herein and intending to be legally bound hereby the parties hereto have reached an amicable agreement to settle all disputes in accordance with the said contract and the said coke as follows…… 3. It is on the basis of the aforesaid that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the revised agreement cannot but be termed to be an agreement arrived at by the parties to avoid litigation since there is no acceptance of liability of diminution in value. 4. Incidentally be it noted that there was no dispute regarding the valuation at the time of original assessment. 4. Incidentally be it noted that there was no dispute regarding the valuation at the time of original assessment. Neither the testing was done in the presence of the customs authorities though loading, unloading and weighment, etc. were effected in their presence. Subsequently however, the facts depict a refund claim has been filed on the basis of the revised invoice. The revised invoice obviously was the result of the revised agreement between the parties as noted above and it is on this factual count that the Tribunal did not see any merit with the appeal preferred before it. We also do not feel inclined to interfere with the reasoning and findings of the Tribunal, since we also do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. ************* Parallel Citations of other Journals : VXL India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excess, Rajkot, 2001(5) Supreme 403 : 2001 (130) ELT 724 : 2001 (44) RLT 820 : 2001 (76) ECC 667 : 2001 (98) ECR 201 00021