2017 (12) TMI 1387 - AT - Customs

N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 - Import of aircrafts - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of Noble Asset Company Ltd. vs CC (Preventive), Mumbai, 2006 (4) TMI 370 - CESTAT, MUMBAI have taken a view that the aircrafts are not liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113 of the Customs Act and also not liable to pay import duty as and when they are brought back into India after making trips abroad and duty cannot be demanded on these aircrafts - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original regarding import of aircrafts, demand for Customs duty, and penalties.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi regarding the import of aircrafts. The dispute mainly revolved around three aircrafts for which the Department demanded Customs duty and imposed penalties. However, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand and penalties, leading to the Department filing the present appeals. The Tribunal considered the case in light of a previous judgment involving similar facts related to the import and subsequent movements of aircrafts. The Tribunal highlighted that the aircrafts were initially imported under specific notifications and later taken out of India and brought back without following necessary procedures. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "imported goods" under the Customs Act and emphasized that once goods are assessed to duty and cleared for home consumption, they cease to be imported goods. The ownership change of goods after initial import does not render the subsequent owner liable for duty again. The Tribunal also discussed the practice of non-levy of duty on vessels for subsequent movements in and out of India to avoid unnecessary financial transactions.

The Tribunal relied on its earlier judgment in the case of Noble Asset Company Limited, where it was held that the aircrafts in question were not liable for confiscation or import duty upon their return to India after trips abroad. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been addressed in separate adjudication orders related to five other aircrafts of the appellant, where the Principal Commissioners had ruled in favor of the appellant based on the Noble Asset Company Limited judgment. The Tribunal found that the Department had dropped proceedings against the five other aircrafts, further supporting the decision to set aside the Commissioner's order in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Department and upheld the impugned order, citing consistency with its previous decision and the lack of grounds for interference.