2022 (12) TMI 1067 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of appellants, allowing vessel entry for breaking purposes.

KPG ENTERPRISE, Soham Internation, Admiral Shipping Agency and Compass Shipping And Trading Limited Versus C.C.E. Jamnagar (prev.)

KPG ENTERPRISE, Soham Internation, Admiral Shipping Agency and Compass Shipping And Trading Limited Versus C.C.E. Jamnagar (prev.) - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 regarding the prohibition of a vessel for breaking purposes.2. Application of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation.3. Allegations of mis-declaration before customs.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case was whether the MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the subject vessel imported for breaking purposes. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of the S.O. and concluded that it only provided enabling provisions for the prevention of designated vessels from entering Indian ports. Since no steps were taken to notify the vessel as prohibited or prevent its entry, the Tribunal held that Section 111(d) of the Act could not be applied as the S.O. did not expressly prohibit the vessel's entry. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner erred in interpreting the S.O. and ruled in favor of the appellants.2. The Tribunal also examined the application of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation. It noted that the S.O. dated 20.06.2016 was applicable only up to a certain date and subsequent resolutions narrowed down the scope to vessels loading, transporting, or discharging petroleum from Libya. Since the subject vessel was imported for breaking purposes without carrying such cargo, the Tribunal held that the vessel's entry did not contravene any UNSC resolutions in force. Therefore, the department's contention that the vessel was prohibited for importation was not sustained, and the impugned order was set aside.3. Regarding the issue of mis-declaration before customs, the Tribunal found that the IMO number of the vessel was correctly mentioned in the Bill of Entry, and the name of the vessel matched the certificate of ownership issued by the Maritime Administration. There was no sufficient material to substantiate the case of mis-statement by the appellants. As the vessel was not imported contrary to any prohibition in force, the redemption fine and penalties imposed by the impugned order were set aside, and the appeals of the appellants were allowed with consequential relief.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal interpretations and conclusions reached by the Tribunal in addressing the issues raised in the case.