9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand customs duty from FTL. There is also no basis for raising duty demands jointly and severally from two legal persons. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entity of the aircraft is established to the satisfaction of the Customs Collector; and (c) That payment is demanded within six months from the date of export." (ii) It is the submission of the learned Counsel that when the aircraft came into India for the first time on 21.10.2007, it was registered in foreign country. It stayed in India for less than six months. Again the aircraft left for FDR fitment and subsequently returned to India after fitment on 26.1.08 after a short period. Finally, as per the lease agreement dated 20.2.2008, the aircraft was taken on lease by M/s. Futura Travels and duty was paid. (iii) Learned Counsel further submits that in 2007, an application was submitted before DGCA, Delhi by FTL, for the permission to fly the aircraft for non-scheduled operations (NSOP) in India. But the said permission was given only in year 2008 when the aircraft was in the possession of M/s. Futura Travels on lease basis. Learned Counsel submits that duty demand retrospectively with effect from 21.10.07 is not demand. (iv) Alternatively, the learned Counsel submits that if the Customs duty is paid retrospectively, they will be entitled to draw back since the aircraft wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver in the year 2007, the applicant have sought for permission for flying before DGCA only in Delhi. So the plea of the appellant that Delhi Customs had no jurisdiction is not sustainable in this regard. 9. The learned DR also submitted a written brief dated14.9.2017 in which he urged the following points: (i) The Essar Group of which M/s. Futura (appellant), was a part, always had the intention to register the Aircraft in India, which was a direct violation of the conditions of Rule 58(6) (a) of the Aircraft Rules. M/s. Essar Group thorugh their letter dated 26.12.2007 had informed the DGCA that M/s. Futura Travels Ltd. (an M/s. Essar Group of Company) had inducted one Hawker 850 XP (Serial No.258819) aircraft to operate under Non-Scheduled Air Transport (Passenger) Services. The Aircraft at that time was undergoing modifications at Hawker Pacific, Singapore to meet the DGCA's requirements for registration in India. (ii) The cost of fitments in Singapore was US$ 84.000/- on the basis of invoice recovered by Customs during investigation. Remittance details regarding this cost was provided by the appellant during the investigation. The cost of the fitments was over and above the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suitable Indian type pilot was not available, has been rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that Capt. Abhinav Singh, a pilot who initially flew the aircraft into India was an employee of the Essar Group. The Adjudicating Authority after discussing the grounds as mentioned above has passed a well reasoned impugned order which deserves to be wholly upheld. 10. We have heard both sides and considered the material available on record. The summary of key dates and events leading to the impugned order is summarised below: DATE EVENT Aug.2007 EIHL entered into short term lease agreement with Jet Finance 21.10.2007 Aircraft imported into India by EIHL and surety bond filed with Commissionerate, IGI, New Delhi 27.11.2007 Aircraft sent to Singapore by EIHL via Bangkok for FDR Fitments as per CAR regulations. 26.01.2008 Aircraft returned after fitment at Mumbai Airport (EIHL is importer on record) Feb, 2008 Sale of Aircraft by Jet Finance to Cessna Finance Corporation. 20.02.2008 FTL enters into a long term lease agreement with Cessna for the Aircraft 14.04.2008 Aircraft sent out of India to Tehran by EIHL 16.04.2008 Request by EIHL to Addl Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by EIHL in which it has been claimed that there was no intention to register the aircraft in India. During the course of investigation by customs, S/Shri Suresh Sundaram and Sunil Bajaj, Directors in the Essar Group Companies admitted in their statements that the Essar Group had the intention to take the same aircraft for NSOP in India. Therefore adjudicating authority has ordered confiscation of the aircraft and charged custom duty for violation of Rule 58(6)(a) of Aircraft Rules. 15. We are of the view that intentions are to be inferred from the conduct of the concerned persons and not only from their statements. The aircraft imported by EIHL on 21.10.2007 stands exported on 14.4.2008, within the period of six months as per the provisions of Rule 58(6) ibid. There is nothing on record to show that EIHL has filed any application to register the aircraft in India. Hence we are convinced that EIHL cannot be held liable for contravention of Rule 58(6) ibid. Consequently there is no justification to order confiscation of the aircraft and demand of customs duty from EIHL. 16. The impugned order has demanded the customs duty on the aircraft jointly and severally from EIHL as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
