Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs, Goa Versus Prince Marine Transport Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (11) TMI 1399 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Confiscation of vessel - whether there was a deliberate attempt to export the old and used vessel in the garb of a new one - respondent stated that only a Free Shipping Bill had been filed. They only wrote to Assistant Commissioner for Drawback Registration and later withdrew their request. - Imposition of penalty - Duty drawback claim - Mis-declaration - Held that:- Under Drawback Rules, old and used goods are ineligible for drawback. This report of Superintendent which is countersigned by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eize the vessel for attempt to export which would have made it liable for confiscation under Section 113h(ii). If indeed there was a deliberate attempt to export the vessel by fraudulently mis-declaring it as a new vessel, the question arises why Customs did not find it appropriate to seize the vessel.

There is no offence committed if exporter makes preparation to claim drawback by preparing the job card to expedite matters. Viewed legally, we find that the only Shipping Bill with the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Decided against the revenue. - Application No. C/S/92199/2015-Mum In Appeal No. C/85162/2015-Mum - Dated:- 13-7-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commissioner (A.R.) For the Respondent : Shri N.D. George, Advocate ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi Stay application is filed against the Order-in-Appeal dt. 19.5.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby order of adjudicating authority confiscating the vessel and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e exporter s bank details for Drawback Registration in the EDI System to enable them to file export bill for claiming drawback. The online checking list Shipping Bill job card dt. 14.12.2012 for claiming drawback of ₹ 32,40,000/- was also prepared. However, when inquiries were made by Customs, the exporter vide letter dt. 17.12.2012 intimated the Assistant Commissioner that they wanted to export the vessel under free shipping bill. And requested for amendment in the description of export g .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o Central Excise under Section 12 of the Central Excise Act. On directions of Hon ble High Court the vessel was provisionally assessed and released for export on Bond of ₹ 17.84 Crores and Bank Guarantee of ₹ 1.78 Crores. Proceedings were also initiated under the Customs Act for attempt to export the old and used vessel under claim for drawback. Proceedings resulted in confiscation of the vessel and penalties on the exporter, its Director and Deputy Manager of the CHA. In appeal, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her viewed that this is not a case where the respondent produced documents such as Logbook to hide the fact that the ship was old and used. The Commissioner relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. 1998 (101) ELT 549. He concluded that there is no case of mis-declaration and the order of confiscation under Section 113(h) (ii) is not sustainable. 3. The Ld. AR appearing for the department emphasised on the sequence of events starting from non-payment of Central Excis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r would have succeeded in its attempt to avail the drawback. 4. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent stated that only a Free Shipping Bill had been filed. They only wrote to Assistant Commissioner for Drawback Registration and later withdrew their request. 5. We have considered the facts and submissions made by both sides. The only issue to be decided is whether there was a deliberate attempt to export the old and used vessel in the garb of a new one. It is possible that the request for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

for drawback under Section 75 of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that under Drawback Rules, old and used goods are ineligible for drawback. This report of Superintendent which is countersigned by the Assistant Commissioner on 19.12.2012 is written on the respondents request letter of 14.12.2012. But the A.C. did not order any action such as seizure of the vessel. It appears that the vessel was seized initially for failure to pay Central Excise duty. However, we understand that the non-paymen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version