2005 (8) TMI 482 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Ambiguity in procedures for rig movement and filing of documents
2. Alleged breach of EXIM policies regarding rig sale
3. Duty demand under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act
4. Filing of shipping bill for rig delivery to Noble
5. Waiver of penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of Customs Act
6. Waiver of pre-deposits required under Section 129E of the Customs Act
7. Consideration for out-of-turn hearing

Analysis:

1. Ambiguity in procedures for rig movement and filing of documents:
The Tribunal considered the ambiguity in procedures for rig movement and filing of documents. Referring to a previous case, it was noted that duty demands on re-import could be barred by limitation as the Customs Department was aware of the import. The Tribunal found that further detailed examination was necessary during regular hearings.

2. Alleged breach of EXIM policies regarding rig sale:
The Tribunal determined that the alleged sale of the rig did not breach EXIM policies. The relaxation of conditions under the EXIM Policy 1992-97 allowed for the sale of goods freely importable without actual user condition. Therefore, the order for confiscation, redemption fines, and duty demands were not considered necessary.

3. Duty demand under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal found that the demand for duty from Essar under Section 125(2) was misdirected. This section applies to the owner or the person from whose possession the goods were seized, which in this case was Noble Ltd., not Essar. Therefore, the duty demand was deemed inappropriate.

4. Filing of shipping bill for rig delivery to Noble:
The Commissioner's finding that Essar failed to file a shipping bill for the rig delivery to Noble was deemed unsustainable. As the movement of the rig occurred between non-designated areas in international waters, no export took place, making the question of filing a shipping bill irrelevant.

5. Waiver of penalties under Sections 112 and 114 of Customs Act:
The Tribunal found a prima facie case to waive the penalties imposed on the Appellants under Sections 112 and 114 of the Customs Act. The penalties were considered bad in law and not sustainable, leading to a recommendation for their waiver.

6. Waiver of pre-deposits required under Section 129E of the Customs Act:
Considering the demand of duties being barred by limitation and the confiscation of goods not being warranted, the Tribunal ordered a full waiver of the pre-deposits required under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The stay of recovery was also ordered pending regular hearing of the appeals.

7. Consideration for out-of-turn hearing:
Due to the findings and the full waiver of duty and penalties, the case was deemed fit for out-of-turn hearing. However, as no application for this was presented, both parties were given the liberty to move such an application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the applications after granting full waiver and staying the recovery of duties and penalties, as ordered accordingly on 19-8-2005.

← Previous Next →