TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Vessel, even if treated as 'goods' were not liable to any Customs duty as the same was exempt from payment of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Thus, the total duty implication was nil. Therefore, the vessel could not be considered as 'dutiable goods', in the light of the apex Court's decision in the case of Associated Cement Companies, cited [2001 (1) TMI 248 - Supreme court of India], and the Tribunal's decision in the case of Jay AR Enterprises (2006 (12) TMI 292 - CESTAT, CHENNAI). If the goods are not dutiable, and there is no prohibition in importing oil tankers to India, the provisions of Section 111(f) are not at all attracted. Consequently, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was delivered to the appellant on 27/10/2010. The said vessel called upon India at Sikka Port (Gujarat) for the first time as a conveyance for cargo loading operations during its foreign run. On vessel's arrival in India, a 'nil' cargo IGM was filed and all the procedural formalities were complied with. The vessel was also boarded by the Customs officials for preventive checks. Thereafter, the vessel left India taking on it the export cargo, after complying with the formalities, including filing of EGM and obtaining port clearance from the Customs authorities. Thereafter, during 2010-12 the vessel called upon India several times while being on foreign run. 3.2 On 22/02/2012, the vessel called upon Mumbai Port and complied wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1962. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order, confiscating the vessel, allowing the redemption of the same on payment of fine and by imposing penalty on the appellant. 3.4 The learned counsel further submits that Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962 envisages any 'dutiable or prohibited' goods required to be mentioned under the Regulations in an import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned, as liable to confiscation. In the present case, the oil tanker is completely exempt from payment of Customs duty under Notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01/03/2002 and therefore, the vessel is not dutiable goods. Similarly, the vessel is not prohibited goods either, as there are no restrictions under the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ag vessel / Indian Ship for subsequent use as foreign going vessel would not require filing of IGM and Bill of Entry as conveyance, since the same are not imported goods to be cleared for home consumption. 3.7 Thus, from the above circular, it is clear that the vessel was brought for the first time into Indian Port, Sikka, as a foreign going vessel, there was no need to file any IGM or Bill of Entry in respect of the vessel. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order confiscating the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine and also imposing penalty is clearly unsustainable in law. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for Revenue, reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority. 5. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
