2018 (5) TMI 1144 - AT - Customs

Stay on imposition of Redemption Fine - permission to take the vessel ABAN-IV out of India for the purpose of undertaking petroleum operation - Held that - Redemption fine is an option which the applicant can choose not to exercise. No time limit has been prescribed in the impugned order for exercising the option. It is understood that staying the imposition of redemption fine would results in applicant getting full custody of the rig, which is the final relief that they are seeking in appeal. No one is forcing them to exercise the option of Redemption and in that context stay has no meaning - More so because the provisional release was granted with conditions imposed in terms of the order of Hon ble High Court. If the order of redemption fine is stayed it will result in bypassing the directions of Hon ble High Court - Tribunal is not the proper forum to seek relaxation in conditions imposed by Hon ble High Court - application therefore rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Stay of imposition of redemption fine
2. Permission to take the vessel out of India

Analysis:
1. Stay of imposition of redemption fine:
The applicant filed two miscellaneous applications seeking relief from the imposition of the redemption fine and permission to take the vessel out of India for petroleum operations. The applicant had imported vessels availing exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 Sr. No. 356 for petroleum operations. However, a discrepancy was found in the declared cost of repair and refurbishment, resulting in evasion of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of ?10,79,67,008/- and ordered confiscation of the vessel, Rig Aban IV, under Sections 111(m) & 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority also imposed a redemption fine and penalties. The Tribunal considered the applicant's request for staying the redemption fine. It noted that staying the fine would result in granting full custody of the rig, the relief sought in the appeal. However, since the provisional release was granted with conditions as per the High Court's order, staying the redemption fine would bypass the court's directions. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the application for staying the imposition of the redemption fine.

2. Permission to take the vessel out of India:
The applicant sought permission to take the vessel out of India, contending that they have other assets in India and that the rig being fully exempted makes its valuation irrelevant. They referenced a Supreme Court order in support of their argument. The vessel, Rig Aban IV, had been confiscated under the Customs Act, and the applicant wanted relaxation in the conditions imposed by the authorities to take the vessel out of India. However, the Tribunal held that it was not the appropriate forum to seek relaxation in conditions imposed by the High Court. The conditions of provisional release were set by the High Court, directing the applicant to execute a bond and operate the rig in India until a specified date. As the Tribunal could not grant the requested relaxation, the application seeking permission to take the vessel out of India was rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of staying the redemption fine and granting permission to take the vessel out of India, ultimately rejecting both applications based on the existing legal provisions and the conditions set by the High Court. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to court directives and legal procedures in such matters.