2005 (2) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the floating crane can be considered a foreign-going vessel.
2. Determination of duty payment for goods imported as 'ship stores' for the floating crane.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts and time-barred proceedings by the Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The case revolves around whether the floating crane can be classified as a foreign-going vessel. The Revenue argued that the crane operates within the harbor area and is not engaged in the carriage of goods like traditional vessels. However, the adjudicating authority found that the floating crane, permanently mounted on a barge with facilities similar to vessels, should be considered a vessel. Citing relevant case law and observations, the authority concluded that the floating crane is a foreign-going vessel, allowing for the supply of stores without duty payment.

2. The dispute also involves the duty payment for goods imported as 'ship stores' for the floating crane. The Revenue contended that duty should be paid on these goods, especially if the vessel is considered coastal run. However, the adjudicating authority, supported by detailed reasoning and relevant precedents, determined that the goods placed on the floating crane were entitled to duty-free benefit, as there was no suppression of facts and the Customs authorities were aware of the situation.

3. The Revenue raised concerns regarding suppression of facts and the time-barred nature of the proceedings. However, the adjudicating authority's thorough examination found no suppression of facts, as the Customs authorities were fully informed about the supply of stores to the floating crane. Consequently, the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Customs Act was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the authority's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to lack of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of the floating crane as a foreign-going vessel, the duty payment status for imported goods as 'ship stores,' and the absence of suppression of facts leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.