9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be as per process dictated in Section 30 and Section 31 of the Customs Act, 1962. From plain reading of Section 31, it is clear that grant of entry inwards for any vessel is a port specific documentation and is required to be done at each port by the proper officer. Expression "the proper" connotes proper officer as "authorised specific officer" at each port. The goods cannot be unloaded at any port unless such proper officer has granted entry inwards at the specific port. This Court has also examined the matter in the light of the decision cited by both sides as well as the relevant statutory provisions, the judgments cited by the appellants do not deal with situation where entry inwards are granted at two different ports at two different points of time. As is emanating from the facts of this case, this Courts finds that the submission made by the appellants, proceed on the wrongful basis that entry into territorial waters and the first entry inwards granted, at the first touched port will dictate rate of duty and shall be considered as date of entry inwards for all subsequent ports, it touches. This Courts finds that there is no statutory basis to support such an argument a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 5% to 7.5% w.e.f. 01/03/2016. However, as the vessel arrived at Indian Port on 27/02/2016, according to the appellant, duty @ 5% was applicable. Therefore, appellant had paid duty @5%. Whereas the officers of the customs department were of a view that duty @ 7.5% would be applicable because the vessel arrived at Pipavav Port on 01/03/2016. According to the officers of customs the date when the vessel arrived at Bombay Port was not to be considered. At the instance of the officers of customs department, differential duty aggregating to Rs.4,01,286/- was paid by the appellant. The appellant had then submitted Refund Application dtd. 23/06/2016 for Rs.3,44,229/- only out of Rs.4,01,286/- because Rs.57,057/- out of Rs.4,01,286/- was passed on to the buyer. 3. A Show-cause Notice dtd. 07/10/2016 was issued to the appellant proposing rejection of the refund. Said Show-cause Notice was confirmed vide Order-in-Original dtd. 05/05/2017. The refund application was rejected. Appeal of the appellant herein against said refund rejection order was also dismissed vide Order-in-Appeal dtd. 01/06/2018 (impugned order). Hence, the present appeal is preferred before this Tribunal. 4. As per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s chargeable to duty, irrespective whether the vessel offloads the cargo or otherwise. Thus, the rate prevailing on the date the vessel arrives into Indian territorial water is relevant and not the date when the same vessel carries some goods to another port. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd V/s. UoI 2008 (227) ELT 24 (SC). While examining the dutiability in regard to the mineral oil extracted from continental shelf and exclusive economic zone and subsequently brought to the landmass of India, it was held that the territorial Jurisdiction of India would extend to these areas. It being so it cannot be said that the mineral oil extracted from these zones and brought to the main land are imported. Thus, Indian territorial waters is as good as Indian landmass for the purpose of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in the present case, moment the vessel containing goods arrived into Indian territorial waters l.e. In-warded at Bombay Port, all the goods contained in the said vessel would have to be considered as imported goods for the purpose of applying rate of duty. There is no question of waiting for the vessel to offload some part of goods at another port and apply rate prevailing on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 when duty rate was hiked which the Appellant paid at the relevant time but sought refund of the amount so paid which is not legal, just and proper has been rightly rejected by the competent authority. Attention is invited to Section 30 and Section 31 of the Customs Act, 1962 as per which the master of vessel shall file IGM and the goods are allowed to be unloaded only when the Entry Inwards is granted by the proper officer In the present case, entry inward was granted by the proper officer on 01.03.2016 which is an undisputed fact. Rate of Customs Duty shail the the rate when entry inward was granted as per provision of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant thus is not eligible for refund. 7.2 The Appellant's contention is that vessel had come to Nhava Shave before Union Budget 2016 and was granted entry inward at Nhava Sheva Port on 28.02.2016 is highly preposterous and lacks any legal standing. The present case pertains to dispute about entry inward at Pipavav Port and not at Nhava Sheva Port. Though at both ports, the Appellant as a commercial entity was importer but when question of entry inward is raised then as per legal provisions, entry inward at Nhav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods: "(1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force,-- (a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that section; (b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under section 68, on the date on which 3 [a bill of entry for home consumption in respect of such goods is presented under that section]; (c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty: [Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before the date of entry inwards of the vessel or the arrival of the aircraft 5 [or the vehicle] by which the goods are imported, the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards or the arrival, as the case may be.] (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post." 10. In the present matter, at the relevant time proviso 'C' was as amended vide Act 33 of 1996 w.e.f 28.09.1996 and as amended by Act, 25 of 2014 Section 80 w.e.f 01.10.2014. Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Delivery of import manifest or import report. - [(1) The person-in-charge of-(i)a vessel; or(ii)an aircraft; or(iii)a vehicle, carrying imported goods [or export goods] or any other person as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, in this behalf shall, in the case of a vessel or an aircraft, deliver to the proper officer an import manifest prior to the arrival of the vessel or the aircraft, as the case may be, and in the case of a vehicle, an import report within twelve hours after its arrival in the customs station, in [such form and manner as may be prescribed] [Substituted 'the prescribed form' by Finance Act, 2018 (Act No. 13 of 2018), dated 29.3.2018.] and if the import manifest or the import report or any part thereof, is not delivered to the proper officer within the time specified in this sub-section and if the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay, the person-in-charge or any other person referred to in this sub-section, who caused such delay, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees.](2)The person delivering the import manifest or import report shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of this case, this Courts finds that the submission made by the appellants, proceed on the wrongful basis that entry into territorial waters and the first entry inwards granted, at the first touched port will dictate rate of duty and shall be considered as date of entry inwards for all subsequent ports, it touches. This Courts finds that there is no statutory basis to support such an argument and rather the plain reading of the statutory provision specifically Section 31, supports the argument of the department that entry inwards at the respective port and not the first port shall determine the rate of duty applicable. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order is well reasoned and deserves to be maintained. Other arguments attempted to be advanced by the Authorized Representative of the department regarding whether assessment could be challenged by the party or not is not being addressed. Since, the appellants has not advanced any argument on this aspect and department itself is not in appeal on this issue. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to pronounce on the same. 12. Order of Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and appeal of the party is rejected. ( Pronounc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
