TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (1) TMI 161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued to the appellants resulting into the impugned orders is the same. Each of the appellants was engaged in oil exploration in the waters of Bombay. They carried out exploration under contract with Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC for short). Their rigs were positioned in areas referred to as Bombay High, Panna, etc. There was considerable movement of goods between the shore and the rigs. The extensive machinery in the rigs often requires repair and replacement. It was the practice in the custom house to treat the replacement of parts or machinery on the rigs as shop stores and not to levy duty on them in terms of the provisions of the Act. Items which required repair or replacement were to be disposed from the rigs are also brought back from the rigs on to the main land. Such activities were carried out by a procedure centralised through the ONGC. ONGC was conducting such operations from shed No. 12 Victoria Docks. The goods which were repaired and required to be fitted as ship stores were cleared from customs without payment of duty on transhipment permits and generally escorted by an officer of the Customs to 12 Victoria Docks. From there the goods used to be sent by supply....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it cannot be denied that the goods should be liable to confiscation. It is not disputed by any of the appellants that the Nhava base was not notified under clause (a) of Section 7 of the Act. In that case therefore any unloading of goods there from the rigs was in contravention of the law. The rigs were located in international waters, and the act of bringing them into Nhava base constituted import of the rig. Technically, therefore, for this act of importation the goods would be liable to confiscation under clauses (a), (f) and (g) of Section 111 of the Act and the importer liable to penalty. In respect of goods brought to its base and supplied to the rigs the provisions of clause (a), (f) and (g) of Section 113 would apply as the goods were being attempted to be exported to the rigs. However, we have to keep in mind the fact that it is not possible to conclude that the department was unaware of the operations of the ONGC at Nhava. The counsel for one of the appellants produced the correspondence between an Additional Collector of Customs and Nhava Sheva and the ONGC. This shows that the ONGC had intimated the department of its operations. Further, the department would in any case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s relaxation would apply to the new place is debatable. Even assuming that is so applicable, it is for the importer to bring to the notice of the department the fact of importation of goods. This has not been done. If the goods had been imported into the Victoria Docks prior to 1988 and cleared therefrom without the department being made aware and the formalities not followed, duty would inevitably be payable on such goods also. The same criteria would apply to the goods imported at Nhava base. It is therefore not possible for us to agree that the extended period of limitation would not apply. 7.We do not see how the fact that ONGC was aware of the removal of the goods made from the base can operate as to deny the availability to the extended period of limitation. Knowledge or otherwise of the ONGC is entirely irrelevant in this case. Nor is it possible for us to agree that the notice for duty issued beyond six months from the date on which the department acquired knowledge is barred by limitation. This view earlier held by some benches of the Tribunal is no longer good law. The Larger Bench in its decision in Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE - 1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 has held that in dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossible to accept that because. the goods were received from the rigs which are located in the exclusive economic zone, they were not imported into India when they were brought to the Nhava base. The contention in the appeal that the Exclusive Economic Zone is included in the definition of India is clearly unacceptable. If, one, looks at the relevant statutory provisions. The Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf Economic Exclusive Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1986 does not provide that the exclusive economic zone shall be part of India. The definition of India in Section 22(7) of the Customs Act included the territorial waters of India. The position perhaps might be different if the rigs were located in a part of the exclusive economic zone of continental shelf notified under sub-section (6) of Section 6 and sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the 1986 Act to be a designated area to which the provisions of the Customs Act have been extended. No such argument has been advanced. 10.Similarly the contention that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act relating to re-export could only be acceptable in respect of goods of Indian origin which was not exported. No details of such good....