9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 00/- was imposed. Further he imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on M/s. Matsyafed, Shri Sadiq who purchased the trawlers and on Shri George Chethalan, Shri Roy K. Thomas and Shri N.O. Rajan who are partners of the Boat Yard at Palluruthy which had undertaken the work of scrapping the vessels. It is the case of the Revenue that the fishing trawlers were imported free of duty by M/s. Kerala Fisheries Corporation Ltd., the predecessor of M/s. Matsyafed under Notification No. 262/58-Cus., dated 11-10-58 in the year 1978. The above notification granted exemption from basic import duty on ocean going vessel other than vessels to be broken up. The notification provided that any such vessel subsequently broken up shall be chargeable with the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to such goods (that is to say, vessels and other floating structures) as are imported for the purposes of breaking up; and (b) any such goods (that is to say, vessels and other floating structures), if subsequently are intended to be broken, the importer shall present a fresh bill of entry to the Collector of Customs, and thereupon such goods shall be chargeable with the duty which would be payable on such goods as if such goods were entered for home consumption under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) on the date of the presentation of such fresh bill of entry to the Collector of Customs for the purposes of break-up of such goods. Subsequently notification dated 19-3-87 was rescinded along with other notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it had been superseded by Notification dated 19-3-87. Apart from the above, a further contention taken before us by the appellant was whether the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the appellants when the goods were imported at Vizag and not within his jurisdiction. 4. We heard the learned DR who made submissions in support of the order impugned. We have also gone through the detailed order passed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner noticed the fact that show cause notice has referred to only Notification No. 133/87, dated 19-3-87 which was no longer in force at the time of issue of the show cause notice. But he proceeded on the basis that action could be taken for violation of the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
