9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cargo to the wharf. The floating crane was allowed clearance on duty free under Customs Exemption Notification No. 36/96-Cus., dated 23-7-96 against re-export bond (Sl. No. 179 of the notification - covering all goods falling under CTH 8905.90). After clearance of the floating crane, the Respondent has been filing transhipment application for placing certain 'ship stores' on the floating crane without payment of duty. The DRI investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the goods imported in the guise of 'ship stores' for placing the same on the floating crane are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the DRI, the floating crane cannot be considered as 'foreign going vessel'. Hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treating them as foreign going vessels are not applicable to the floating crane which is only a handling equipment either in the waters of harbour or along side the wharf. Hence stores without payment of duty cannot be allowed for the same. (ii) In terms of Section 3(55) of the Merchant Shipping Act, vessel is given an inclusive definition to include any ship, boat, sailing vessel or other description of vessels used in navigation. The floating crane structure cannot sail unless it is placed on another barge. Therefore, the floating crane "Diamond of Vizag" is not a foreign going vessel and it is only a dumb barge fitted with crane. (iii) M/s. Dhana Reddy Company had filed for entry outwards for "Diamond of Vizag", and made all e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, even if a vessel is foreign going vessel, whenever such vessel turns to coastal run, duty on "ship stores" is payable. The floating crane in question cannot be considered to be a foreign run vessel for entitlement to ship stores without payment of duty. She also urged that the Respondent should have declared to the Customs authority that the floating crane is on coastal run and should have paid duty on all the imported stores placed on the vessel. She relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Aurangabad [2003 (156) E.L.T. 859 (Tri.-Mumbai)] wherein it was held that the Diesel Internal combustion engine or components thereof for fitment on navy or coas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also relied on the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Amership Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (86) E.L.T. 15 (Bom.)] wherein it has been observed that for a 'vessel' it is not necessary that it should be fitted with mechanical means of propulsion. Further taking into consideration of the facts that the floating crane arrived at the Port of Vizag from China, that it has a foreign flag owned by the Respondent who is a foreign company operating from Dubai, that the floating crane after arrival at Vizag is not taken to any other Indian Port for any other purpose whatsoever, that the foreign crane is used exclusively for transferring import of cargo from mother vessels to daughter vessels which in turn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
