9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and violation of procedure in view of the fact that there were entries in IGM even though not in appropriate column. At the time of importation, non-filing of bill of entry can be said to be a procedural error and for this reason, when the appellant is eligible for the exemption available otherwise which is a substantial benefit, it may not be correct to deny the entire benefit when we know that appellants are eligible for the same. Needless to say since the rig and the tug have acquired the characteristics of smuggled goods, they are liable for confiscation and penalty is imposable on the concerned importer thereof, but duty demand is a different proposition. The bank guarantee for ₹ 3.5 crores executed by the appellants if kep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y-dock vessel carrying the rig arrived at Cochin outer anchorage on 27.3.2011 and on 29.3.2011, the tug towed the rig to Cochin Shipyard for repairs. On 20.3.2012, the repair and dry-docking of the rig was completed. The IGM had been filed in the month of March 2011 in respect of tug, the rig and the vessel. The IGM for the rig and the tug as well as the vessel showed cargo as nil. In April 2012, the appellants filed application for amending the IGM which basically was to change the cargo declaration from nil to rig / tug. This was allowed by the Customs department. However, in both cases the matter has been appealed by the Revenue and the matter is pending before Commissioner (A) at present. On 30.4.2012, bill of entry was filed for the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovision relating to Customs warehousing would not apply. Therefore, the stand taken by the Revenue that the rig has been smuggled is not correct. As far as the tug is concerned, he submits that the tug was used only once for moving the rig from outer anchorage to Cochin Shipyard and therefore on this ground it has been held that in the absence of filing of bill of entry for tug, it has become a smuggled tug. He submits that issue as to whether a vessel has to be treated as goods or convenience and under what circumstances it has to be considered as either is a matter which requires detailed consideration and there is lot of confusion on this issue. He submits that in this case tug is actually used for carrying the rig and it was in the port ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ising because of various definitions. At this stage. In our opinion, prima facie when the ship and tug and rig were brought and rig was handed over for repair an into bond bill of entry must have been filed. Similarly in the case of tug, before utilizing the same in Indian waters, a bill of entry must have been filed. Therefore in both cases, it can be said that the goods have acquired the characteristics of smuggled goods even though it cannot be said that appellants have intentionally and deliberately resorted to evasion of duty and violation of procedure in view of the fact that there were entries in IGM even though not in appropriate column. Moreover, we also find that prima facie the denial of exemption in its totality may not be susta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
