9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty liability on the third section of a wrecked vessel that sank on-route to Alang, Gujarat. 2. Applicability of duty exemption under Notification No. 133/87-Cus. 3. Time-bar defense for duty demand. 4. Interpretation of the bond requirement for duty payment. 5. Calculation of duty liability based on tonnage. Analysis: 1. The case involved a duty demand of Rs. 73,72,706 on the third section of a vessel that sank while being transported to Alang, Gujarat for breaking. The appellant argued that no duty should be payable as the section sank 66 miles from the Indian Coast at a depth of 1,000 meters, citing Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Notification No. 133/87-Cus. The appellant also raised the defense of time-bar and impossibility under Section 56 of the Contract Act due to the sinking. Additionally, they argued for duty calculation based on LDT rather than NRT, supported by relevant case laws. 2. The Tribunal considered the exemption under Notification No. 133/87-Cus., which exempts vessels and floating structures unless imported for breaking up. The vessel in question became a wreck due to a cyclone and was not initially imported for breaking. As two sections reached Alang and duty was paid, the third section, which sank, was held to be entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal also applied Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing remission of duty on goods lost before clearance for home consumption, supporting the exemption for the sunk section. 3. The appellant's argument regarding the bond requirement for duty payment was analyzed. The Tribunal noted that the bond required carrying the third section to Alang and paying duty there, which became impossible due to the sinking. This invoked the principles of impossibility under Section 56 of the Contract Act, supporting the appellant's position on the bond interpretation. 4. Regarding duty calculation based on tonnage, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue as the primary focus was on the exemption under Notification No. 133/87-Cus. The appellant's argument for limiting duty liability to LDT instead of NRT was not extensively discussed in the judgment. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand upheld by lower authorities, ruling in favor of the appellant. The sinking of the third section, which prevented its transportation to Alang for duty payment, qualified for duty exemption under the relevant notification and remission under the Customs Act. The judgment highlighted the unique circumstances of the vessel becoming a wreck and the practical impossibility of fulfilling the bond requirements due to the sinking, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.
|
