Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 207 - AT - CustomsMis-declaration of good – Demand of Duty & Imposition of Penalty – Appellant had not declared certain goods in cargo declaration because of which said undeclared goods were confiscated and demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty was imposed – Held that:- appellant purchased vessel for ship breaking purpose vide Memorandum of Agreement on “As is Where is” basis – On perusal of said agreement, it was clearly evident that appellant purchased vessel “RITA” for ship breaking purpose – It was clear from expert opinion that seized goods were used in oil field, wherein vessel in question was passenger vessel – Thus it was clear that these items were not part and parcel of vessel and if they were so, they would have been brought on record and declared as ship stores –Hence these items were nothing but ‘cargo’/ ‘goods’, which ought to have been declared in IGM – No material available on record that these items were kept in vessel from other source and that appellant had paid any amount for seized goods – Demand of duty on these seized items separately can not be sustained which was already included in MOA price as per agreement on lumsum basis – Thus, there was no mis-declaration on part of appellant – Therefore impugned order can not be sustained – Decided in favour of Appellant.
|