TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary permissions and records filed and signed by the respective authorities at different stages - it appears that the appellant (Ship Chandler) had not deviated nor violated any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and there is no allegation in the impugned order of violation of any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The provisions of Section 89 of CA, clearly state that the Proper Officer i.e., the customs authorities have to determine taking into consideration the size of the vessel or aircraft the number of passengers and crew and the length of the voyage on which the vessel or aircraft, have to determine the quantity that need to be supplied as stores on to the vessel. Hence, it was the duty of the concerned author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of permission granted for operating as Ship Chandler s and penalty under Section 117 was also proposed. 3. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that as per Section 89 of the Customs Act, 1962, stores are to be freely exported. However, the goods to be supplied onboard the foreign going vessel as stores should be in such quantum taking into cognizance the number of passengers and crew and the length of voyage. He further states that even ascertaining the passengers and crew on board numbers about 280 as declared by the appellant, the number of masks required would be 68600 and therefore 2,00,000 masks supplied onboard was seer violation of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. He holds that the appellant should have intimated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord the letter dated 14.5.2020 issued by Embassy of the Republic of Philippines, New Delhi to the Commissioner of Customs stating that 2,00,000 pieces of disposal 3 ply masks were loaded on to the Philippines Navy Vessel, in support to the Philippines s Government efforts to mitigate the impact of COVID19 Pandemic. In view of the above, permissions granted by the respective authorities for exporting the same, the question of suspension of his permission or imposing of penalty does not arise. Hence, requested for allowing the appeal. 5. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that since the case were prohibited, the question of allowing these goods for export was not correct and hence, the authorities were right in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilippine Government efforts to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The port of destination will be at Pier 13, South Harbor, Manila, Philippines. Hence, it appears that the appellant (Ship Chandler) had not deviated nor violated any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and there is no allegation in the impugned order of violation of any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.1 Since the goods were Ship Stores , the applicability of the DGFT Notification is not relevant. The only allegation stated by the Commissioner in the impugned order is Section 89 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as follows: Stores to be free of export duty Goods produced or manufactured in India and required as stores on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
