9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents have imported seven aircrafts which were sent to Colombo, Sri Lanka and thereafter returned. In these appeals, the dispute is regarding three aircrafts. The Department has demanded the Customs duty and imposed penalties. But the adjudicating authority dropped the demand and imposition of penalties. Being aggrieved, the Department has filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri R.K. Manjhi, learned DR for the Revenue and Shri Tushar Jarwal, learned counsel for the assessee-Respondents. 4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that, in the assessee-Respondent's own case, regarding the two aircrafts, the matter was assailed before the Chandigarh Regional Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending before CESTAT, Delhi. It is also undisputed that subject aircrafts were, at the time of initial import, cleared for home consumption by filing bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, the aircrafts left the country without filing shipping bills under Section 50 of the Customs Act. They went to Colombo to be handed over to M/s. INV-2R Leasing Company Limited as per Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 19.12.2012. Later, both aircrafts were brought back into India without filing necessary bills of entry, under Section 46 of the Act. The Department has alleged that the export of aircrafts was in contravention of Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, that their import being fresh import, the appellant violated Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essel, is not liable for payment of customs duty for the movements in and out of the country. In this regard, the definition of foreign going vessel is relevant. The definition states that foreign going vessel includes inter alia any vessel engaged in fishing or any other operation outside the territorial waters of India. 6.d(vi). The question whether the change of ownership of a vessel, after its first import and clearance from Customs, would render the subsequent owner liable for payment of duty once again. This question assumes relevance as the rig was imported first in the year 1987 by Essar when a Bill of Entry was filed and the rig was cleared for home consumption. Thereafter, in the year 1996 the ownership of the rig changed the ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whenever the vessel went to a non-designated location/out of India. Therefore, if a vessel carrying cargo arriving into Bombay Port say on May 1, 2006, would be liable to pay duty on the full value of that ship and the Shipping Company would then become entitled to refund of the said amount as Drawback, on May 6, 2006, under Section 74 of the Act, of the duty paid, when it left the Port & goes back to international waters/foreign port. The entire course of international trade would be unnecessarily hampered and the Customs department would be only busy in collecting the duty on day one and refunding the same on day five or earlier. It is possibly for this reason that the practice of non-levy of duty on vessels on their subsequent movements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
