9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Porbandar port from Dubai contained various ship stores on it. Since this vessel sustained damages and not capable of undertaking further foreign run and needed repairs, accordingly, the appellant filed an application for transshipment of the ship stores on port to their newly built vessel SV Shivam on 25.01.2008 which was floated in Porbandar Sea as on 01.01.2008. On the same day, the transshipment permit was granted to the appellant by the Superintendent Customs, Porbandar after collection of requisite transshipment fees and execution of bond. Consequently, after receiving such permission, the necessary ship stores was transferred from the old Ship to the newly built vessel. Later, SCN was issued to the appellant for recovery of customs d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke the foreign voyage only. It is his contention that the ship went for foreign voyage on 30.04.2008 and barring consumption of a few liters of diesel, before its foreign voyage, the entire ship stores had been consumed in foreign voyage. He has argued that it is not the requirement of Section 86 and 87 of the Customs Act, that as on the date of transfer of the ship store, immediately the vessel should undertake the foreign voyage or had returned from a foreign voyage, therefore, demanding duty on the ship stores ultimately consumed in the foreign voyage is bad in law. In support, he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vs Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (226) ELT 347 (G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption from application of Rules in certain cases after 1993 including thereunder the import of goods of transshipment. He submits that this provision is inapplicable to the present case, therefore, the finding of the Ld. Commissioner(appeals) is unsustainable in law. Also he has submitted that the Ld. Commissioner(appeals) has erred in setting aside the confiscation of the goods. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that the issue for determination in the present appeals is whether the appellants are required to discharge the customs duty on the transshipment of the ship stores from the vessel MSV Sundaram to SV Shivam belonging to the same owner. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification, the Customs Department had allowed transshipment of the ship stores declared by the appellant earlier from MVS Sundaram to the newly built ship SV Shivam. The grievance of the Revenue is that as on the date of transfer of the shipment stores from the vessel MSV Sundaram to SV Shivam, the later one was newly built ship and not ready for sailing, therefore, cannot be considered as foreign going vessel within the definition of foreign going vessel prescribed under Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the transshipment of stores without payment of duty under Section 86 of the Customs Act,1962 is incorrect and the appellant-assesse is required to discharge duty on the ship stores and the same is also liable for confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
