9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether compressors fitted to refrigerator marine containers are considered ship's stores under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai centered around the classification of compressors fitted to refrigerator marine containers as ship's stores under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. The Collector had previously held that these compressors were not ship stores as containers are not part of the ship. The appellant argued that since refrigeration in the container relies on electricity from the ship generators, the compressors should be considered ship stores. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the mere presence of containers on board a ship does not automatically make them part of the ship. They highlighted that marine containers are designed for multi-product transport, often being carried by other means of transportation, and cannot be considered part of trucks or trains on which they are carried. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision of electricity from the ship to the container does not change its classification as part of the ship. The appellant also relied on a letter from the Ministry of Shipping and Transport, dated August 6, 1983, which considered marine containers as part of the ship. However, the Tribunal dismissed this assertion, noting that the letter lacked reasoning and the competence of the author to make such a statement was not established. They emphasized that unsupported assertions cannot be accepted as evidence in determining the scope of the term "ship stores" under the Import Trade Control Order. Furthermore, the Tribunal distinguished a previous Bombay High Court judgment regarding drilling equipment as ship stores, stating that it was not relevant to the current case. They also discussed a previous Tribunal decision regarding containers supplied by shipping agencies, highlighting the distinction made between containers and packages for transport purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the decision in that case was specific to the facts presented. In response to an alternative argument invoking Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy, which permits import of capital goods by registered ship repairing units, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision to reject the plea due to lack of evidence of registration with the Directorate General of Shipping. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Collector's decision and dismissed the appeal.
|
