TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R Heard both sides. Shri S. Murugappan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that a tug and two barges were imported from Mongolia for use in the proposed Sethusamudram Project which later on did not take off. A manifest was filed when initially the tug and barges came to the Chennai Port. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the stores on board and paid the duty on the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that both the Sections 111(f) and 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962 quoted by the adjudicating Commissioner are not applicable in this case. 2. Heard the learned DR Ms. Indira Sisupal who states that the appellants have obtained the tug under a commercial invoice and hence they should have filed a Bill of Entry for the same and should have paid the duty on the same as goods. She also states ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ag for repairs by way of applying for permission for coastal run. Accordingly, a prima facie view was taken that the appellants are not liable for penal action. We find that Section 111(j) deals with removal of dutiable and prohibited goods from a Customs area without the permission of the proper officer or contrary to the terms of such permission. In this case the appellants had applied for takin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
