New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 929 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 929 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Imposition of redemption fine - provisional release of goods on payment of full differential duty and furnishing Bank Guarantee of ₹ 65 lakhs, besides executing a Bond of ₹ 33 crores - Barge - Section129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - relief sought under Section 35F - The asset has been confiscated and has been offered for redemption on payment of redemption fine. The same has been released on execution of bond and a bank guarantee. In these circ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fter confiscation the property of the confiscated goods vests in the state. The applicants wish to enjoy the benefit without fulfilling their obligation of paying redemption fine. Therefore more stringent conditions need to be put for allowing further use of the asset. - The applicants to execute bank guarantee of ₹ 2,85,00,000/- in addition to existing bank guarantee. On furnishing of such guarantee the respondents will permit the applicant’s to sail out of India the barge subject to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr. (AR) ORDER This is a miscellaneous application filed by M/s Bhambhani Shipping Ltd. seeking relief in the form of directions from CESTAT under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The appellant had imported a Barge - HALANI STAR, and the same was cleared provisionally on payment of duty on the value determined as per Order-in-Original CAO No. 07/2014/CAC/CC(I)AB/ Gr.VB dated 24.02.2014 of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai. In the said order, the said bar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion given in the adjudication order. 2. By this miscellaneous application, the applicants are seeking permission to sail out for a new Time Charter Contract dated 12.5.2016 from M/s DULAM International Ltd., Dubai for the Barger - HALANI STAR, which is presently anchored in India and lying idle. The appellant argued that earlier in the similar circumstances, CESTAT vide Order No. M/7-8/15/CB dated 5.1.2015 in miscellaneous application No. C/MA(Ors)/98410/14-Mum in their own case had permitted to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted that they have deposited ₹ 35 lakhs as directed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.7.2014. The applicants have applied to the Commissioner of Customs (Import) to permit them to sail the said vessel out of India, however, the said permission has not been granted and the matter is getting delayed. It was submitted by them that the Commissioner of Customs has directed them to file miscellaneous application before CESTAT and get suitable directions from CESTAT. In pursuance of that the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issions. We find that Section129E of the Customs Act, 1962, does not deal with this situation and, therefore, no relief under Section 35F can be granted. However, it is seen that the applicants are seeking the directions under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. Earlier in similar circumstances, in the applicants own case, Tribunal vide order dated 5.1.2015 observed as follows: - 5. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the further collection of amount demanded toward .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the appellant shall file an undertaking before the Authority stating the purpose of taking out of the vessel and further undertake to bring back the same within a period of 24 months from the date of release of the vessel. The miscellaneous applications are disposed of. 4.1 The appeal of the applicants against the impugned order is still pending before the Tribunal. It is seen that no significant steps have been taken by the applicant to seek final disposal of the said appeal. No early hearing a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

interest of the Revenue. Considering the reasons satisfactory and pre-deposit of ₹ 6.52 crores and bank guarantee 8.20 crores lying with the Revenue, we allow the applicant to take the vessel out side India for deployment for completion of work order for period of six months subject to condition that the applicant executes bank guarantee of ₹ 3 crores in favour of the Commissioner of Customs(Import), New Custom House, Mumbai. The applicants bank guarantee of ₹ 8.20 crore execut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has not been granted by the Tribunal on the confiscation/exercise of option of redemption fine. At the same time attention has been drawn to the former occasion when said vessel was allowed to be taken out for repair at Dubai on execution of bank guarantee of ₹ 60,00,000/- vide order no. S/925/13/CSTB/C-I dated 25th June 2013 to be brought back on 30th September 2013. The Tribunal, by order no. M/1633/13/CSTB/C-I dated 28th October 2013, rejected the request of the appellant for extension .....

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 that, in the past, the vessel had been taken out for dry dock and repairs which were considered essential to avoid degeneration of the asset. Accordingly, bank guarantee, adduced as security, was restricted to ₹ 60,00,000/-. However, when it was taken out for commercial purpose, bank guarantee of ₹ 3,00,00,000/- was directed to be executed. We also observe that in a similar application filed for a temporary release of another of their vessels Seamec II, this Tribunal, vide order no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

our paramount concern. Undoubtedly, the retention of the vessel in idle condition does not serve anybodies interest and may well accelerate its deterioration. We also observe that Revenue has not considered it necessary or expedient to take possession of the vessel upon non-exercise of option to redeem the confiscated vessel. We cannot, at the same time, ignore the precedent of allowing such release by the Tribunal for maintenance as well as for commercial objectives which Revenue does not appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 3,00,00,000/- in addition to existing bank guarantee of ₹ 8.12 corers for MV Seamec II to approximate the redemption fine of ₹ 12,00,00,000/-, the interest of justice will be advanced by allowing the MV Seamec III to be taken out for commercial purpose and dry docking for a period of six months upon execution of bank guarantee of ₹ 7,00,00,000/- in favour of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and bond for value of the vessel. 4.2 The applicants have also availed this relief e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cases the importers are not in a position to return the provisionally released goods and the option of redemption is deemed to have been exercised by them ii) The provisionally released asset is in custody and possible use of the importer after provisional release. In such cases it is open to the importer to exercise the option of redemption or not. 4.3 In the first case there is no possibility of return of the asset and in such case redemption fine needs to be recovered immediately. 4.4 In 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

idered the rival contentions, we find that the further collection of amount demanded towards penalty and fine has been stayed by this Tribunal vide stay order dated 15.7.2014. Further we find that the interest of revenue is secured in view of the Bond and Bank Guarantee and also the pre-deposit made vide the said order dated 15.7.2014 of this Tribunal. Thus, we permit the appellant to take the vessel out of Indian Territorial waters for a period of 24 months for execution of the Time Charter Con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version