TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 113 of the Customs Act and also not liable to pay import duty as and when they are brought back into India after making trips abroad and duty cannot be demanded on these aircrafts. Considering the fact that the Department itself has dropped similar proceedings in relation to five other aircrafts, which were imported initially and subsequently gone out of India under sale and purchase agreements and came back under the lease agreement, we hold that the order of ld. Commissioner is not sustainable and the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/60151/2017 - A/62117/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 5-12-2017 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, various statements were recorded and information/ documents were sought from the appellant, based on which the impugned show cause notice was issued in respect of two aircrafts mentioned above. The matter was adjudicated and in the adjudication order, ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 14,67,25,176/- under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and ordered confiscation of impugned aircrafts with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 3.5 Crores on each aircraft. Penalties of ₹ 2.5 Crores each have also been imposed on M/s. Ligare Aviation Limited under Section 112(a) (ii) and Section 114 (ii) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfiscation of aircrafts since there is no dutiability. 5. Ld. AR for the Revenue supported the impugned order and reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. Ld. AR could not show that the two orders passed by Principal Commissioner (Peventive), New Delhi and Principal Commissioner (Import), New Delhi have been appealed against by the department. 6. Heard the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. We find that the undisputed facts are that two aircrafts in question were imported by the appellant availing the benefit of notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The said aircrafts were operated by them under non-scheduled operator under License No. 01/1998 issued by Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). In fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962 and, that their import being fresh import, the appellant violated Section 46(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, import duty was leviable on these aircrafts and they were also liable to confiscation under Section 111 (i) and 111(l) and 113(h) of the Customs Act, 1962. The question to be decided is, whether after initial assessment and clearance, the subsequent taking out of the two aircrafts, out of India and bringing them back into India would amount to export and import respectively under Customs Act, 1962. 8. We agree with the contention of the ld. Advocate that the issues involved in the present appeal are no longer res-integra and have been conclusively settled by this Tribunal in the case of Noble Asset Company Limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared for home consumption. Thereafter, in the year 1996 the ownership of the rig changed the hands and when the rig came back to India in December, 1997, duty has been demanded from Noble on the premise that Noble had not discharged duty on the rig as owners of the rig and that they could not take shelter in the fact that appropriate duty had earlier been discharged on the rig by its previous owner (Essar). We are unable to agree with this contention of the Revenue, as ownership of goods or a vessel, is irrelevant in determining its duty liability under the Customs Act. It is the act of Import, which renders goods liable for duty no owners. Once an entity has been imported and assessed to duty and cleared for Home Consumption, they cea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s possibly for this reason that the practice of non-levy of duty on vessels on their subsequent movements in and out of India evolved, i.e., once such vessel had been assessed to duty and cleared for home consumption, further levy Drawback liabilities not called for. 9. We also find that the appellant had initially imported 7 aircrafts (including the two impugned aircrafts). In the similar set of facts in respect of five other aircrafts of the appellant, the same issues arose and in separate adjudication orders dated 15.02.2017 and 13.07.2017, two different Principal Commissioners by relying on the Tribunal judgment in Nobel Asset Company Limited (supra) have taken a view that the aircrafts are not liable to confiscation under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
