2013 (10) TMI 579 - AT - Customs

Classification of Goods Benefit of Notification No.21/2002 - Revenue classified the vessel under CTH 89039990 Held that - The issue involved in this case is regarding classification of a casino vessel imported and claimed classification under CTH 8901 - The declared classification was considered by the Revenue as proper classification and clearance was accordingly allowed - the classification of a vessel, capable of carrying cargo and persons, is classifiable under CTH 8910 and not under CTH8905 even if such a vessel was used for carrying out repairs & maintenance, inspection, rescue support at the ONGC platforms. Waiver of Pre-deposit - Further determining of the classification of a stationary casino vessel which is also capable of transporting goods & persons will need deeper considerations and detailed arguments which can be only done at the time of final hearing - Appellants also argued that assessment made in the Bill of Entry has not been contested or reviewed by the Revenue and has attained finality - Prima facie appellants have made out a case for complete waiver of confirmed dues/penalties on time bar and merits as a result of later judgment of CESTAT -Mumbai in the case of Hall Offshore Ltd. Vs. CC (Import) Mumbai 2013 (10) TMI 409 - CESTAT MUMBAI - there shall be complete waiver from recoveries of confirmed dues and penalties till the disposal of the appeal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported casino vessel under CTH 8901, applicability of extended period for demand, conflicting views by CESTAT on classification of vessels with multiple uses, waiver of confirmed dues and penalties based on later judgment.

Classification of imported casino vessel under CTH 8901:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of a casino vessel imported by the appellant under Bill of Entry No.F-27. The appellant claimed the vessel's classification under CTH 89011010, benefiting from Notification No.21/2002-Customs. However, the adjudicating authority classified the vessel under CTH 89039990, imposing penalties and confirming the demand. The appellant argued that the proper assessing authorities had accepted the declared classification, and all necessary documents were provided during clearance. The CESTAT -Mumbai bench's judgment in a similar case supported the appellant's argument, emphasizing that vessels capable of carrying cargo and persons should be classified under CTH 8910, not under CTH 8905, even if used for other purposes like repairs and maintenance.

Applicability of extended period for demand:
The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as the Bill of Entry's assessment had not been reviewed or contested by the Revenue. The appellant argued that the extended period should not apply since the correct classification was declared, accepted by assessing authorities, and all necessary documents were provided during clearance. The CESTAT's later judgment supported the appellant's position, leading to a prima facie case for a complete waiver of confirmed dues and penalties until the appeal's disposal.

Conflicting views by CESTAT on classification of vessels with multiple uses:
The judgment highlighted conflicting views by the CESTAT on the classification of vessels with multiple uses. While the appellant relied on a CESTAT -Mumbai bench judgment supporting their classification under CTH 8910, the respondent cited a different case where a similar casino vessel was classified under CTH 8903. The judgment noted the need for deeper considerations and detailed arguments on the classification of a stationary casino vessel capable of transporting goods and persons, which could only be addressed during the final hearing.

Waiver of confirmed dues and penalties based on later judgment:
Considering the conflicting views by the CESTAT and the later judgment supporting the appellant's position, the judgment concluded that the appellant had made a case for a complete waiver of confirmed dues and penalties until the appeal's disposal. The waiver was based on the later judgment's relevance and the lack of wilful mis-declaration or suppression regarding the vessel's description by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the need for detailed arguments on the vessel's classification with multiple uses, indicating that a final decision would be made during the final hearing.