2020 (3) TMI 646 - AT - Customs

Movement of vessel from the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Goa - Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner of Customs while adjudicating the order, did not find merit in confiscating the vessel. The confirmation of duty, interest and penalty has been assailed by the appellant before this forum and have complied with the provision under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 - In these circumstances, there are no merit in not allowing the appellants to take the vessel out of the jurisdiction of the Goa Customs for its use at Redi in Maharashtra. Consequently, leave is granted to take the vessel out of the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Goa, to Redi Port in Maharashtra. The leave is granted to take the vessel out of the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, Goa, to Redi Port in Maharashtra - The appeal will be heard on 18.03.2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction to move vessel from Commissioner of Customs, Goa to Redi Port, Maharashtra.
2. Compliance with Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Confiscation of vessel and recovery of duty, interest, and penalty.

Jurisdiction to Move Vessel:
The Miscellaneous Application was filed by M/s Fomento Resources Pvt Ltd to seek permission to move the floating crane MV MARIA LAURA from the Customs jurisdiction in Goa to Redi Port in Maharashtra for operational purposes. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court at Goa, in a related matter, directed the appellant to seek permission from the Tribunal before moving the vessel. The appellant had complied with the High Court's direction by submitting an undertaking, leading to the return of their Bank Guarantee. The Commissioner of Customs did not order confiscation of the vessel while confirming duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant, in compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, had deposited 7.5% of the duty amount. Consequently, the Tribunal granted leave to move the vessel to Redi Port in Maharashtra, considering the circumstances and compliance by the appellant.

Compliance with Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962:
The appellant challenged the confirmation of customs duty, interest, and penalty in the present appeal. To secure the right to appeal as per Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant had deposited 7.5% of the duty amount. The Tribunal noted the appellant's compliance with this provision and found no reason to prevent the vessel from being moved to Redi Port in Maharashtra for operational purposes. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's adherence to the statutory requirement regarding the deposit for appealing against the customs duty, interest, and penalty.

Confiscation and Recovery Concerns:
The Revenue's Special Counsel expressed concerns about the recovery of the confirmed duty if the vessel was allowed to move from the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Goa. However, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not order confiscation of the vessel during adjudication. Given the compliance with the statutory deposit and the absence of confiscation orders, the Tribunal did not find merit in the Revenue's apprehension regarding duty recovery. Therefore, the Tribunal granted permission for the vessel to be moved to Redi Port in Maharashtra, dismissing the Revenue's recovery concerns in light of the compliance by the appellant and the absence of confiscation orders.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal granted leave for the vessel to be taken out of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Goa, to Redi Port in Maharashtra, for operational use. The decision was based on the appellant's compliance with statutory provisions, including the deposit required for appealing against the confirmed duty, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal's ruling facilitated the operational requirements of M/s Fomento Resources Pvt Ltd while ensuring adherence to legal procedures and directives from the Hon'ble High Court.