2008 (4) TMI 173 - AT - Customs

Appellant purchased vessel from one importer vessel confiscated on ground of violation of condition of notification 133/87 condition was that where any vessel imported duty-free under the Notification was subsequently intended to be broken, a fresh B/E was required to be presented in view of definition of importer u/s 2(26) of Custom Act, appellant, after acquiring ownership of the goods, was liable to file fresh B/E before proceeding to break the vessels so confiscation is justified

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Customs Notifications regarding exemption for imported vessels
- Liability of subsequent owner for payment of duty and compliance with Customs Act provisions
- Justifiability of confiscation and imposition of penalty by Commissioner

Interpretation of Customs Notifications regarding exemption for imported vessels:
The case involved the purchase of fishing trawlers from a government undertaking that had imported them duty-free under Customs Notifications. The Notifications exempted ocean-going vessels from duty, with a condition that if such vessels were subsequently broken, duty would be payable. The Tribunal held that the subsequent owner, as the importer under the Customs Act, was liable to file a fresh Bill of Entry for duty payment if the vessels were to be broken. The liability under the Notification passed to the new owner, and the rescission of the Notification did not extinguish this liability due to relevant saving clauses. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the condition ceased to be operative post-rescission, emphasizing the owner's obligation to comply with Customs provisions.

Liability of subsequent owner for payment of duty and compliance with Customs Act provisions:
The Tribunal determined that the appellant, as the subsequent owner, was obligated to pay duty on the vessels. Non-compliance led to breach of the Notification condition, attracting confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. The appellant's intention to break the vessels, as indicated in statements, further confirmed the liability to file a Bill of Entry for duty payment. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant, as the owner, fell within the definition of "importer" and was liable to observe Customs formalities. The Commissioner's order of confiscation was upheld, emphasizing the appellant's breach of the Notification condition and consequent penal liability under Section 112.

Justifiability of confiscation and imposition of penalty by Commissioner:
While affirming the confiscation of vessels, the Tribunal deemed the quantum of fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner unreasonable. The Commissioner's order lacked sufficient rationale for fixing the amounts, leading the Tribunal to reduce the fine and penalty to Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 5,000, respectively. The Tribunal also noted the appellant's payment of duty exceeding the required amount, directing the refund of the excess within thirty days. The appeal was disposed of with the mentioned modifications to the fine and penalty amounts, emphasizing the need for justifiable penalties in line with the case's circumstances.