TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is attributed is that though the imports were not meant for repairs, it was so stated in the Bills of Entries. This stand to invoke the proviso found to be incorrect by the Tribunal and it has recorded that there was no misstatement of fact. No doubt the respondents claimed that the goods were meant for ship repair. However, for this purpose the complete statement of fact and the manner in which the imported goods were to be utilized was stated in the communication. After going through the same it was for the authorities to come to the conclusion whether goods could be treated for the purpose of ship repair or not. In no case it can be termed as willful misstatement/wrong declaration. On this ground alone the respondent is to succeed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000. The limitation, at the relevant time, for issuance of show cause notice was six months. It is therefore clear that in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, the show cause notice issued to the respondents before the limitation period. However, the Department sought to invoke the aforesaid proviso on the ground that there was willful misstatement and miss-declaration of the imports in the Bills of Entries which were filed by the respondents in clearing the goods. The misstatement/miss-declaration which is attributed is that though the imports were not meant for repairs, it was so stated in the Bills of Entries. This stand to invoke the proviso found to be incorrect by the Tribunal and it has recorded that there was no misstat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently omitting reference to MACE India. It is significant that 17 bonds out of 48 bonds executed by Moloobhoy have been discharged by the customs authority after accepting evidence of fitment of equipment on ships. The extended period of limitation therefore could not be invoked at all in respect of inputs by Dolphin Offshore Enterprises and could not have been invoked in respect of merits made by Moloobhoy Sons prior to 5th May, 1999. We are shown the copy of letter dated 2.1.1999 written by the respondents to the Appraising Officer of Customs (Imports). In this communication the respondents had clearly mentioned the goods imported which were sought to be cleared including the use thereof. On that basis it was claimed that these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
