2004 (9) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty liability on the vessel M.V. 'State of Haryana' purchased for scrapping.
2. Definition and identification of the "Importer" under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of Notification 163/65-Cus. and its proviso.
4. Validity of duty demand and assessments made by the Revenue.
5. Refund claim by the Respondent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Duty Liability on the Vessel M.V. 'State of Haryana':
The vessel M.V. 'State of Haryana' was built in India in 1982, cleared for home consumption, and later sold by the Shipping Corporation of India for scrapping in 2001. The Department demanded duty under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing Notification 163/65-Cus. as amended by Notification 129/86-Cus.

2. Definition and Identification of the "Importer":
The Commissioner (Appeal) held that the Shipping Corporation of India, which sold the vessel in India and charged sales tax, was the importer under Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld that the Respondent, being a purchaser post-clearance for home consumption, did not fit the definition of "Importer."

3. Applicability of Notification 163/65-Cus. and its Proviso:
Notification 163/65-Cus. exempts ocean-going vessels manufactured in a warehouse from duty, but the proviso mandates duty if the vessel is broken up. The Tribunal concluded that the vessel ceased to be ocean-going when sold for breaking at Porbander, thus attracting duty as per the proviso. However, the duty liability was on the Shipping Corporation of India, not the Respondent.

4. Validity of Duty Demand and Assessments Made by the Revenue:
The Tribunal found that the duty demand on the Respondent was invalid as they were not the importer. The assessments made on the Bill of Entry at Bhavnagar and subsequent duty demands were not upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the vessel, when moved from Porbander to Bhavnagar, was not on an ocean-going voyage but intended for breaking.

5. Refund Claim by the Respondent:
The Respondent's refund claim, initially rejected due to the matter being sub-judice, was reconsidered post the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order. The Tribunal upheld the Respondent's non-liability for the duty, supporting the refund claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order that the Respondent was not liable for the customs duty on the vessel M.V. 'State of Haryana'. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that the duty liability rested with the Shipping Corporation of India as the importer. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the correct interpretation of the definition of "Importer" and the applicability of Notification 163/65-Cus.