9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs (Import), Mumbai [2014 (12) TMI 617 - CESTAT MUMBAI], will apply to the present case, where it was held that the vessel could not be considered as ‘dutiable goods’ - if the goods are not dutiable, and there is no prohibition in importing oil tankers to India, the provisions of S`ection 111(f) are not at all attracted. Consequently, the appellant is not liable to any penalty under Section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 either - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - C/85180 & 85181/2013 - A/93174-93175/16/CB - Dated:- 18-10-2016 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri S N Kantawala, Advocate for the appellant Shri K M Mondal, Special Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entry for import and hence are smuggled goods liable for confiscation under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962. The vessel, valued at ₹ 26,25,21,979 for assessment, was allowed provisional release on 12th December 2011 subject to payment of customs duty of ₹ 3,99,31,876, furnishing of bank guarantee of ₹ 5,25,00,000/- and on execution of bond for assessable value. Reportedly, the vessel sailed out on 10th January 2012 after change in name and registry owing to transfer of vessel to foreign owner on 3rd January 2012. In the meanwhile, permanent registration in the Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) was accorded on 13th April 2011. Bill of entry no 4846251 was filed on 5th October 2011 against Import General Manifest no 201384 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e vessel had, indeed, called at Bhavnagar and had sailed out for Fujairah from there on a foreign run is the concomitant contention on behalf of the appellant. 7. Learned Special Counsel, Mr Mondal, appearing for respondent-Commissioner fervently opposed this line of argument and contended that the decisions relied upon are not applicable to the facts in dispute. The appellants in re Shipping Corporation of India and re Samson Maritime Ltd had imported exempted goods and, hence, the question of plying smuggled vessels did not arise as occurred in the matter now before us. He also argued that a careful reading of the proceedings would reveal that it was not for the offence at Alang that proceedings were initiated but for non-filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratively, are not of the same standing as other cargo for the expression vessels finds inclusion within the definition of goods and conveyances in section 2 of Customs Act, 1962. It appears from the contention of the Learned Special Counsel that the dual identity contrived by law is now diagnosed as schizophrenia requiring medication for remedying. Even if the argument of Mr Mondal that the vessel lying within the jurisdiction of Mumbai was not absolved of its duty liability is to be accepted, then confiscation only follow a finding that duty liability had not been discharged in accordance with section 47 of Customs Act, 1962. In the contention of the allegation that the vessel, as goods , had not discharged its liability was g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of entry, and this direction had been complied with. Confiscation has been ordered by invoking section 111 (f) of Customs Act, 1962 which reads thus: (f) any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned. It is an admitted fact that Import General Manifest no. no. 200750 dated 25th February 2011 was filed on arrival at Mumbai and, admittedly, it failed to declare that the vessel, itself, was goods. This was rectified by filing of another Import General Manifest no 2013841 dated 13th June 2011 incorporating the vessel' as goods. We find in section 30 (3) of Customs Act, 1962 that (3) If the proper officer is satisfied tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of import, responsibility for discharge of duty liability can be fastened without further recourse to assessment of duty. There is, as yet, no provision in law for determining duty liability sans compliance with the procedure prescribed for assessment. And that, verily, is inextricably linked with jurisdiction of Bhavnagar to assess duty. The contention of Learned Special Counsel that the jurisdiction question that arose in re Shipping Corporation of India and re Samson Maritime Ltd does not arise here is not acceptable. 11. We find that in re Shipping Corporation of India and re Samson Maritime Ltd, the issue of duty liability was also considered along with the issue of jurisdiction. So it is here, too, as the appellant has claime ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
