Prospective operation of customs exemption notification barred countervailing duty on pre-2012 vessel imports later converted to coastal run status.

Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. operated prospectively only because it expressly superseded the earlier exemption notification while saving acts done or omitted before supersession. Vessels imported before 17.03.2012 could not be subjected to countervailing duty merely because they were later converted from foreign-going status to coastal run status. The Court accepted the distinction between import-time goods and a vessel's later use as a conveyance, and reiterated that an exemption notification cannot create a levy beyond the charging provision. Prior decisions involving the same notification and assessee were treated as correctly stating the law, and the petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 could be applied retrospectively to vessels that had already been imported prior to its issuance, so as to require payment of countervailing duty upon later conversion from foreign-going status to coastal run status.

Analysis: The vessels in question had been imported years before the impugned notification and had earlier operated in Indian waters under the then-prevailing exemption regime. The notification expressly superseded the earlier exemption notification but saved things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, indicating a prospective operation. The Court also accepted the distinction between a vessel as imported goods at the time of import and a vessel merely functioning as a conveyance thereafter, and relied on the settled view that an exemption notification cannot be used to create a levy outside the charging provision. The earlier decisions dealing with the same petitioner and the same notification were treated as correctly stating the law.

Conclusion: The notification was held to operate prospectively only, and countervailing duty could not be demanded on vessels imported prior to 17.03.2012 merely because they were later converted from foreign-going to coastal run status. The petition was therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.

---