9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orts), Mumbai. In the impugned orders, the learned adjudicating authority has classified the Tug/Supply Vessels "Sea Cheetah" and "Sea Venture" imported by the appellant, M/s. Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. vide Bills of Entry No. 891148 dated 20/04/2009 and 867537 dated 23/10/2008, respectively, under CTH 8904 and confirmed differential duty demands of Rs. 9,08,68,858.87 and RS.62,88,264/- respectively by invoking the extended period of time. Further he has imposed the following penalties. S.No. Name of the person on whom penalty imposed Penalty (in Rs.) under Section of Customs Act 114A 112 (a) 114AA Vessel Sea Cheetah 1 Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. 9,08,68,858.87 - - 2 Mr. Hasan A Kadir Mapari, Manager (Operations) of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oking extended period of time and demanding differential duty and proposing imposition of penalties. These notices were adjudicated by the impugned order and the proposals were confirmed. Hence, the appeals. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: 3.1 The appellant had submitted the invoices, packing lists, bill of sale and certificates from Indian Register of Shipping, when the goods were originally imported and assessed. In the bill of sale and the surveyor certificate attached thereto and also in the certificate issued by the Indian Register of Shipping, the goods were described as tug/supply vessel. Therefore, there is no mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. 3.2 Further, the vessels were boa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capacity of 851 M 3 for fuel oil, 168 M 3 for portable water, 885 M 3 for drill water, 600 tonnes of deck cargo and bulk material capacity of 184 M 3. Therefore, it is clear that the vessel is capable of carrying cargo. Similarly in the case of "Sea Venture", the said vessel also has cargo carrying capacity and passenger carrying capacity and therefore, it is not a mere tug and is in fact a high breadth vessel. 3.5 Reliance is placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hind Offshore Ltd. vide Order No. A/101-107/13/CSTB/C-I dated 07/11/2012 wherein it was held that supply vessels would merit classification under CTH 8901. The ratio of the said decision would apply to the facts of the present case. Reliance is also placed on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have been any suppression on the part of the appellant. The learned Consultant submits that in the case of "Sea Cheetah", the demands have been made under Section 28 and therefore, the question of time limit would arise whereas in the case of "Sea Venture", the vessel was seized and provisionally released and subsequently, the vessel was held liable to confiscation under Section 111(m). On confiscation, option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation was granted under Section 125(1). In a case where goods are confiscated and allowed to be redeemed, the person who is liable to pay fine is also liable to discharge the differential duty liability. Since no time limit has been prescribed for demand of duty under Section 125(1), the differentia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Register of Shipping, the vessel is shown as offshore tug/supply ship. Therefore, if the department wanted to classify the vessel under CTH 8904, they should have done the same when the bills of entry were filed along with other import documents for the purposes of assessment which they failed to do. Further, it is seen that in the appellant's own case vide order-in-appeal No. 34/2006 dated 19/01/2006, the lower appellate authority had classified the anchor handling tug/supply vessel under CTH 89019000 as a cargo vessel. This order of the lower appellate authority was not challenged by the Revenue and had attained finality. In these circumstances, the appellant could have entertained a bona fide belief that the goods under importatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that the appellant had suppressed any information. Since the show-cause notices have been issued only in 2012 in respect of the imports made in 2008 and 2009, the demands are clearly time barred and therefore, the question of confirming differential duty would not arise at all. As regards the argument that since one of the vessels were seized and confiscated and allowed to be redeemed, there is no time limit for demand of duty, we do not subscribe to this view. In the present case, the goods were imported by filling the bill of entry and submitting all the necessary documents and the goods were assessed to duty as per the classification claimed by the importer. Once the assessment has been completed by the customs under section 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
