9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 73 - AT - CustomsJurisdiction - import of vessel MT Navdhenu Sana - smuggled goods - Held that - We find that in the case of Shipping Corporation of India 2014 (12) TMI 617 - CESTAT MUMBAI and Samson Maritime Ltd. & anr. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2015 (11) TMI 1023 - CESTAT MUMBAI , the issue of duty liability was also considered along with the issue of jurisdiction. So it is here, too, as the appellant has claimed to be a foreign-going vessel which, while on foreign run, was compelled to make landfall at Mumbai owing to emergency. Appropriately, the decision of this Tribunal in Shipping Corporation of India v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai 2014 (12) TMI 617 - CESTAT MUMBAI , will apply to the present case, where it was held that the vessel could not be considered as dutiable goods - if the goods are not dutiable, and there is no prohibition in importing oil tankers to India, the provisions of S ection 111(f) are not at all attracted. Consequently, the appellant is not liable to any penalty under Section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 either - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues: Lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon alleged illicit import of vessel 'MT Navdhenu Sana'
In this case, two appeals were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal arising from a common order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. The main issue raised by the appellants was the lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the alleged illicit import of the vessel 'MT Navdhenu Sana.' The vessel in question, an 'anchor handling' tug, was bought by an Indian entity and arrived at Mumbai for repairs after being seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The seizure was based on the belief that the vessel, being Indian-registered, had failed to comply with customs duties and filing requirements. The appellants argued that the vessel was intended for use outside India and had already been subjected to duty payment before being exported. The jurisdictional issue was raised concerning the location of the vessel at the time of the alleged offense and whether the Commissioner had the authority to initiate proceedings. The appellants contended that the adjudicating Commissioner lacked jurisdiction based on precedents such as Shipping Corporation of India v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai and Samson Maritime Ltd. & anr. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. They argued that the vessel's call at Bhavnagar and subsequent foreign run indicated that Mumbai was not the competent jurisdiction. However, the Special Counsel for the respondent argued that the cited precedents were not applicable to the current case as they involved exempted goods, unlike the vessel in question. The dispute centered on whether the initiation of proceedings was based on the offense at Alang or the failure to file the Import General Manifest for the vessel upon arrival in Mumbai. Upon reviewing the show cause notice and impugned order, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's jurisdictional argument unconvincing. The requirement to declare the vessel as 'goods' upon arrival was questioned, with the Tribunal emphasizing that vessels are distinct from cargo and subject to different customs regulations. The Tribunal delved into the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the filing of manifests and the declaration of goods, highlighting the specific requirements for different types of cargo. The Tribunal also analyzed the application of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the confiscation and redemption of goods upon payment of fines. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation of the vessel and the demand for duty payment lacked factual and legal basis, especially considering the compliance with filing requirements and the absence of grounds for confiscation. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was unsustainable in law due to the lack of jurisdiction and the erroneous application of customs provisions. Citing precedents and legal provisions, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper jurisdiction, compliance with customs regulations, and the accurate application of legal provisions in customs cases.
|
