Shipping company's tug vessel confiscation and penalty overturned for unintended Import General Manifest non-filing

CESTAT Kolkata set aside confiscation of tug vessel and penalty imposed on shipping company for non-filing of Import General Manifest (IGM) by steamer agent. The tribunal found no mens rea or prior knowledge of non-compliance by the appellant or vessel operators. Since imported cruise vessel was duty-exempt under tariff heading 89.01 and all requisite permissions for inland river tourism were obtained, the omission was unintended. The tribunal held that imposing penalty without establishing guilt or wrongdoing violates natural justice principles. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of the tug Century Star-1 and vessel Pandaw-IV.
2. Non-filing of Import General Manifest (IGM) and other customs documents.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act.
4. Compliance with statutory permissions and approvals.

Summary:

Confiscation of Tug Century Star-1 and Vessel Pandaw-IV:
The Customs Officers intercepted vessel Pandaw-IV and found no satisfactory shipping documents. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of tug Century Star-1 under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and vessel Pandaw-IV for violating sections 111(a), (b), (d), and (h) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the tug Century Star-1 merely towed Pandaw-IV from Myanmar to Sagar Road, and there was no evidence implicating the tug in any illegal activity. Consequently, the confiscation of tug Century Star-1 was set aside.

Non-filing of Import General Manifest (IGM) and Other Customs Documents:
The appellants argued that the vessel Pandaw-IV was imported after observing all formalities and acquiring necessary permissions. They attributed the non-filing of IGM to a bona fide mistake by the steamer agent, M/s. B. Ghose & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the responsibility for filing the IGM lay with the Master of the vessel Pandaw-IV, not the tug Century Star-1. The Tribunal also noted that all necessary approvals for the vessel's importation were in place, and the omission was not intentional.

Imposition of Penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act:
The appellants contended that no duty was payable due to an exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and that the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act were not applicable. The Tribunal agreed, stating that no mens rea was involved, and the case was revenue-neutral. Therefore, the imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b) was not justified.

Compliance with Statutory Permissions and Approvals:
The Tribunal noted that all necessary permissions and approvals from various government bodies, including the Inland Waterways Authority of India and Kolkata Port Trust, were obtained for the vessel Pandaw-IV. The vessel was brought into India for tourism development, and there was no attempt to smuggle the vessel. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had complied with all statutory requirements, and the charge of smuggling was unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the lower authority, allowing the appeals filed by the appellants and providing consequential relief. The decision emphasized the absence of mens rea and the compliance with all necessary statutory permissions and approvals.

---