9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVEDHAR, J.) 1) These two Writ Petitions are filed to challenge the public notice No.81/2011-12 dated 22/9/2011 as also seizure of the vessel M.V. Sangita M.V. Ocean Garnet belonging to the petitioners under a seizure panchanama dated 12/1/2012 and 20/12/2011 respectively. 2) Both the Writ Petitions are admitted and taken up for final hearing with the consent of both the parties. 3) Both the petitioners companies are engaged in the business of providing marine services. Great offshore Ltd. was originally a offshore division of Great Eastern Shipping Co, Ltd. which Offshore Division was demerged from the parent company on 16/10/2006 pursuant to a Scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Bombay High Court. As per the scheme of arrangement all the assets of the offshore division of the then parent company including the vessel M.V. Sangita came to vest in Great Offshore Ltd. M/s.Samson Maritime Ltd. the second petitioner, was formed on 27/7/1985 by the amalgamation of Goa Towage Salvage Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Underwater Services Co. Pvt. Ltd. along with all assets including the vessel Ocean Garnet . 4) M.V. Ocea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Notification and disposed of the appeal without recording any specific finding as to whether it was mandatory to file B/E on importation of the ocean going vessels. 8) In the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling INC V/s. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2001(135) ELT 625 (Tri) the dispute was, whether on initial importation of the oil rig , the importer was liable to file B/E and failure to do so would render the vessel liable for confiscation. The Tribunal held that the rig imported in that case was liable for confiscation, because, firstly, no B/E was filed on initial importation of the rig and secondly, the rig was moved out of the customs area without proper permission. The Tribunal while upholding the confiscation, permitted the importer to redeem the rig on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation in addition to any duty or charges payable payable in respect thereof. The said decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court as reported in 2005(179) ELT A39 (S.C.). 9) From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that under the provisions of the 1962 Act filing of B/E in respect of the goods which include vessels is mandatory even if the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the vessels in question as also other vessels were imported more than a decade ago for the purpose of using the said vessels as ocean going vessels. Since the customs duty on the ocean going vessels were exempted, the customs authorities had not insisted on filing Bills of entry on importation of those vessels. As the genuine belief formed by the petitioners as also the customs authorities at the relevant time is found to be incorrect, the petitioners are now ready and willing to file B/E in respect of those vessels, however the customs authorities cannot seek to recover customs duty on those vessels on the ground that the exemption on ocean going vessels are not available on those vessels on the date of the filing of B/E. He submitted that at the stage of initial import as also at every time the said vessels were taken out or brought back into India as a ocean going vessel, requisite permissions have been obtained from the customs authorities and, therefore, at this belated stage the customs authorities are neither justified in seizing the vessels nor justified in demanding the duty on those vessels. 14) Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, on the ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification issued in 1987 is restricted to the goods specified in sub-heads of Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act, however, the fact remains that even under the 1987 Notification, exemption on ocean going vessels continued till 2000. Since the seized vessels were imported prior to 2000, prima facie, it appears that the customs duty on the said vessels were not payable. If the duty was not payable on the date of import and customs authorities have permitted user of the vessels all these years as imported goods, in our opinion, the customs authorities are not justified in abruptly seizing the vessels in question. 19) In the case of SEAMEC Limited V/s. Union of India being Writ Petition (L) No.2921 of 2011 decided on 11/1/2012, this Court was called upon to consider similar provisional release order passed by the customs authorities. In that case also, no B/E was filed when the vessel in question therein was initially imported in the year 1988. The said vessel was sent out of the territorial waters for the purposes of repairs in the year 2011. On its return after repairs, the vessel was seized. For the provisional release of the vessel, the customs authorities demanded duty on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
