9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Payment of customs duty and commission charges. 3. Applicability of customs duty on salvaged vessel. 4. Interpretation of exemption notification for ocean-going vessels. 5. Demand for payment of service charges. 6. Demand of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Analysis: 1. The court held that the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be granted to the Petitioners. The demand for payment of customs duty and commission charges was deemed legal, and the Respondents did not act without lawful authority. The transaction of purchasing the salvaged vessel was considered a contractual matter, and the Petitioners failed to raise objections to the payment conditions before submitting their tender. 2. The court found that the salvaged vessel, M.V. Ocean Star, attracted customs duty as it was no longer a conveyance for carriage of goods after sinking and being salvaged. The provisions of the Customs Act and Indian Ports Act supported the imposition of customs duty on salvaged goods brought into India. The Petitioners' argument against the payment of customs duty was dismissed. 3. Regarding the interpretation of the exemption notification for ocean-going vessels, the court analyzed the notification and concluded that even if an ocean-going vessel was subsequently broken up, customs duty would be payable as per the proviso in the notification. The court highlighted the liability of the Petitioners to pay customs duty based on the notification's provisions. 4. The demand for payment of service charges to the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Ltd. was upheld by the court. The Corporation was acting as a canalizing agency under relevant import laws, and the Petitioners were obligated to pay service charges for the re-rollable scrap, including old ships, vessels, etc., for breaking, as per the Import Policy. 5. The court addressed the Petitioners' objection to the demand for additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the court emphasized that the description of the imported goods determined the duty liability, not the condition of the goods. The court rejected the Petitioners' contention and upheld the demand for additional duty. 6. The court discharged the Rule with costs and directed the Petitioners to pay the additional duty within two months, with interest at 10% from the date of the judgment. The court rejected the request for a certificate to file an appeal in the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the award of interest on unpaid additional duty depends on the facts of each case.
|
