9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on such as seizure of the vessel. It appears that the vessel was seized initially for failure to pay Central Excise duty. However, we understand that the non-payment of Central Excise duty is a matter of separate proceedings under the Central Excise Act. This seizure by Central Excise authorities was effected on 26.12.2012. Till this time there was no proposal to seize the vessel for attempt to export which would have made it liable for confiscation under Section 113h(ii). If indeed there was a deliberate attempt to export the vessel by fraudulently mis-declaring it as a new vessel, the question arises why Customs did not find it appropriate to seize the vessel. There is no offence committed if exporter makes preparation to claim drawbac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted. Later the exporter, through the CHA, submitted request on 14.12.2012 to clear the vessel under claim of duty drawback and enclosed the exporter s bank details for Drawback Registration in the EDI System to enable them to file export bill for claiming drawback. The online checking list Shipping Bill job card dt. 14.12.2012 for claiming drawback of ₹ 32,40,000/- was also prepared. However, when inquiries were made by Customs, the exporter vide letter dt. 17.12.2012 intimated the Assistant Commissioner that they wanted to export the vessel under free shipping bill. And requested for amendment in the description of export goods in the Shipping Bill dt. 12.12.2012 from Offshore Supply Vessel Hadi 38 to Old and Used Offshore S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact that the ship was old and used. The Commissioner relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. 1998 (101) ELT 549. He concluded that there is no case of mis-declaration and the order of confiscation under Section 113(h) (ii) is not sustainable. 3. The Ld. AR appearing for the department emphasised on the sequence of events starting from non-payment of Central Excise duty to mis-declaring the description of the vessel. According to him, the request for amendment of Free Shipping Bill to drawback claim was withdrawn only after Customs started making inquiries about the vessel. He also emphasized that the respondent had prepared job work card for filing Shipping Bill on ICEGATE to claim drawback even though Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as seizure of the vessel. It appears that the vessel was seized initially for failure to pay Central Excise duty. However, we understand that the non-payment of Central Excise duty is a matter of separate proceedings under the Central Excise Act. This seizure by Central Excise authorities was effected on 26.12.2012. Till this time there was no proposal to seize the vessel for attempt to export which would have made it liable for confiscation under Section 113h(ii). If indeed there was a deliberate attempt to export the vessel by fraudulently mis-declaring it as a new vessel, the question arises why Customs did not find it appropriate to seize the vessel. Even, the examination report on the request letter dt.14.12.2012 only states that the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
