9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta came to vest in Great Offshore Ltd. M/s.Samson Maritime Ltd. the second petitioner, was formed on 27/7/1985 by the amalgamation of 'Goa Towage & Salvage Co. Pvt. Ltd.' and 'Underwater Services Co. Pvt. Ltd.' along with all assets including the vessel 'Ocean Garnet'. 4) 'M.V. Ocean Garnet' was initially imported on 6/11/1997 and 'M.V. Sangita' was initially imported in December, 1999. These vessels being 'goods' covered under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act, 1962 ('the 1962 Act' for short), it was obligatory to declare these vessels as goods in the 'Import General Manifest' ('IGM' for short) under Section 30 of the 1962 Act and file 'Bill of Entry for home consumption' ('B/E' for short) under Section 46 of the 1962 Act for clearance. 5) However, in view of the fact that the customs duty on the ocean going vessels were wholly exempt by Notification No.262 of 1958 dated 11/10/1958 as replaced by Notification No.133 of 1987 dated 19/3/1987 and in view of the fact that the Import-Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1971 required filing of the Import General Manifest in respect of the goods carried in the vessel, the petitioners neither filed the B/E nor the vessel was declared as good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court as reported in 2005(179) ELT A39 (S.C.). 9) From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that under the provisions of the 1962 Act filing of B/E in respect of the goods which include vessels is mandatory even if the customs duty payable on such goods is wholly exempt. However, it appears that prior to the withdrawal of the exemption in the year 2001, the consistent practice followed by the customs authorities was not to insist on filing of B/E in respect of Ocean going vessels in view of the total exemption. 10) The question, therefore, to be considered is, in respect of the ocean going vessels imported into India prior to 2001 where no B/E is filed, whether the customs authorities are justified in directing the importers to file B/E at this belated stage and if so, in view of the withdrawal of the Exemption Notification in the year 2000, whether the importers can be saddled with the duty liability in respect of those ocean going vessels imported prior to 2001 ? 11) In the present case, admittedly the two vessels in question were imported prior to 2001 without filing B/E. In the year, 2011, that is, after more than a decade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained from the customs authorities and, therefore, at this belated stage the customs authorities are neither justified in seizing the vessels nor justified in demanding the duty on those vessels. 14) Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, on the other hand, submitted that at no stage the petitioners had declared the vessels in question as goods and since the vessels were declared as 'conveyance', the customs authorities were misled in the matter. Moreover, in spite of the public notices issued from time to time, the petitioners have failed and neglected to file the B/E and, therefore, the customs authorities were justified in seizing the vehicles in question. 15) Since the seized vessels could be released provisionally subject to terms under Section 110A of the 1962 Act, we had directed the customs authorities to consider release of the seized vessels on provisional basis. Accordingly, by two orders in original both dated 9/2/2012, the Commissioner of Customs has permitted provisional release of the vessels subject to : a) filing of B/E for home consumption of the vessel with payment of duty as quantified therein. b) Bank guarantee of 10% of the assessa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported in the year 1988. The said vessel was sent out of the territorial waters for the purposes of repairs in the year 2011. On its return after repairs, the vessel was seized. For the provisional release of the vessel, the customs authorities demanded duty on the total value of the vessel i.e. original value of the vessel as also the value on account of modifications carried out. Challenging the aforesaid order, the above Writ Petition was filed. 20) The argument of the petitioners therein before this Court was that no duty was payable on the component representing the value of the vessel, because when the vessel was originally imported it was exempt from payment of duty. Accepting the contention of the assessee therein, this Court held that the revenue would not be justified in including the value of the vessel for the purpose of provisional duty demand. Similarly, this Court held that no bank guarantee be furnished on the amount representing the value of the vessel. 21) Even in the present case, in our opinion, the revenue is not justified in demanding the duty for provisional release of the vessels when, prima facie, it is not in dispute that on the date of initial import o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
