9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability of petitioners to pay duty on diesel oil stored in vessel 'M.V. Seafox' at Cochin Port. 2. Whether vessel 'M.V. Seafox' qualifies as a foreign-going vessel. 3. Existence of assessment order and validity of demand made by the respondent. 4. Application of Section 28 of the Customs Act. 5. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 147(3) of the Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioners, M/s. New Maritime Agencies Private Ltd., were appointed agents of a vessel 'M.V. Seafox' that arrived at Cochin Port from Colombo with cargo for Cochin and Bombay. The vessel left Cochin exclusively for Bombay with diesel oil in store, leading to a duty imposition of Rs. 10,311.23. The primary issue was the petitioners' liability for this duty, distinct from the duty paid on other cargo brought to Cochin. Counsel raised four key points: (i) the vessel's classification as a foreign-going vessel under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, (ii) absence of an assessment order, (iii) potential bar under Section 28 of the Act, and (iv) the proviso to Section 147(3) as a defense. 2. Regarding the vessel's status as a foreign-going vessel, the Court analyzed the definition under Section 2(21) of the Act. The vessel, by exclusively transporting cargo to Bombay from Cochin, was engaged in coastal trade, not qualifying as a foreign-going vessel. This conclusion was supported by the vessel's actions and the nature of its voyage, leading to a rejection of the contention. 3. The absence of an assessment order was raised during arguments, with the petitioners claiming no such order existed. However, evidence presented, including correspondence and Ext. P3, indicated the presence of an assessment order dated 30-5-1966. The Court dismissed this argument, noting the petitioners' initial compliance with the demand before raising objections later. 4. Section 28 of the Act, dealing with notice for payment of duties not levied or short-levied, was invoked by the petitioners. The Court clarified that this provision applies when duty has not been levied or assessed, which was not the case if returns were filed within the specified time frame. The filing of a Bill of Entry by the petitioners within the required period was crucial in determining the applicability of Section 28(1). 5. The interpretation of the proviso to Section 147(3) was contingent on the applicability of Section 28, as it provides protection to agents in specific scenarios. Since Section 28 was deemed inapplicable due to the timely filing of returns, the proviso did not offer a defense. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the petitioners' liability for the duty imposed and awarded costs against them.
|
