9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h was submitted along with import documents, it is clearly shown that the vessel is an anchor handling tug/supply vessel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessing authority did not know the nature of the vessels under importation. Even in the Lloyds register which is mentioned in the Indian 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. In the appellant's own case 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 importation merited classification under CTH 8901. Appellant had furnished the requisite particulars as envisaged under the law at the time of assessment of the goods. The vessels were also boarded and examined by the Customs and therefore, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 and 867537 dated 23/10/2008, respectively, under CTH 8904 and confirmed differential duty demands of ₹ 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 Hind Offshore - 5 lakhs 5 lakhs 3 M/s Falcaon Cargo Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., CHA - 5 lakhs 10 lakhs 4 Mr. Devraj M Salian, Executive (Operations) of CHA firm - 5 lakhs 5 lakhs Vessel Sea Venture 1 Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. - 50 lakhs 50 lakhs 2 Mr. Hasan A Kadir Mapari, Manager (Operations) of Hind Offshore - 10 lakhs 10 lakhs Aggrieved of the same, the appellants are before us. 2. The facts relating to the case are briefly as follows: 2.1 M/s. Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd., the importer had imported two vessels, namely, "Sea Cheetah" and "Sea Venture" vide Bills of Entry No. 891148 dated 20/04/2009 and 867537 dated 23/10/2008 respectively by declaring them as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bona fidebelief that anchor handing tug/supply vessel imported by them is correctly classifiable under CTH 8901. 3.4 The learned Counsel further submits that the vessel imported by the appellant is a supply vessel with anchor handling capabilities. A supply vessel by its very nature is capable of carrying goods and passengers. In addition, it can also undertake other functions such as anchor handling, towing, etc. Merely because the vessels under import have the capability of anchor handling/towing, it does not cease to be a supply vessel. In the present case, the "Sea Cheetah" has a capacity of transporting 21 persons including a crew of 13. Further, it has a cargo 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial duty liability. Since no time limit has been prescribed for demand of duty under Section 125(1), the differential duty demand in the case of "Sea Venture" would sustain. Even in respect of "Sea Cheetah", it is his contention that the importer appellant had misdeclared the goods and had not furnished the full details and therefore, invocation of extended period of time is justified. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 First we take up the issue of time limitation. In the present case, we find that at the time of original importation and assessment, the appellant had furnished invoices, packing lists, bill of sale and certificate from the Indian Register of Shipping. Further the goods were also examined on first check basis by the customs authorities by boarding the vessel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Customs officers did not know what the goods under import were, that is, whether it is only a mere supply vessel or it is also capable of anchor handing. Further, the certificate issued by the Indian Register of Shipping clearly described the class of the vessel as tug/supply vessel. In other words, the towing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies on the shoulders of the one alleging it. In the present case we find that the appellant had furnished the requisite particulars as envisaged under the law at the time of assessment of the goods. The vessels were also boarded and examined by the Customs and therefore, it cannot be contended 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 of the Customs Act, the demand for differential duty on account of short levy or non-levy has to be made under Section 28 only and not under any other provision. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
