9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia. The appellants along with M/s. Newbury are parties to the production sharing contract dated 2.3.2007 entered into with Government of India. The appellants brought a Jack-Up Rig 'Mercury Focus' for using in oil exploration and this was taken to Cochin Shipyard for dry-dock repair. This rig was carried by another vessel by the name of M.V. Talisman till the outer anchorage point of Cochin port. Thereafter an anchorage enabling tug-cum-supply vessel by the name 'M.V. Shunter' to tow and push the rig for repairs to Cochin Shipyard was also brought to India. Both the tug and rig are owned by M/s. Newbury. The tug-cum-supply vessel arrived at Cochin outer anchorage on 9.2.2011 and berthed in Cochin port on 17.3.2011. The dry-dock vessel car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand for customs duty of Rs. 13, 32, 95,211/- has been confirmed. Redemption fine of Rs. 58 lakh has been imposed. Penalty equivalent to the duty demand has also been imposed. 3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant made a detailed and very elaborate submission. He explained that there was no need for filing bill of entry at all for the rig or the tug since the rig was sent to Cochin Shipyard which is part of customs station and when the imported goods are in customs station, the question of filing bill of entry does not arise. Revenue has treated the repair of the rig in Cochin Shipyard as amounting to processing in warehouse and he submits that since Cochin Shipyard is part of Customs station, the provision relating to Customs w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate at the time when the rig and tug arrived in India. Since no bills of entry were filed when the rig and rug were brought and no proper entry was made in IGM, the stand taken by Revenue for demand of duty, imposition of fine and penalty cannot be faulted with. He submits that it is the requirement of Notification that Essentiality Certificate has to be produced at the time of filing bill of entry and bill of entry has to be filed when the goods are brought into India, both of which have not been fulfilled by the appellants. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We would not like to go into detailed discussion of various statutory provisions of different enactments, the confusion arising because of various definiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay 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. 5.1 Having regard to the observations made above and the submissions made by both the sides, in our opinion, the bank guarantee for Rs. 3.5 crores executed by the appellants if kept alive during the pendency of appeal, would be sufficient for hearing the appeal. Learned counsel agrees to keep the bank guarantee alive during the pendency of appeal. 6. At this stage, we take note of the fact that appellants are al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
