Ocean-going vessel exemption depends on design, certification, and import status, not later uptopping or transhipping use.

An imported vessel qualified as an ocean-going vessel for exemption under Notification No. 262/58-Cus. because its nature, design, certification, and capability at the time of importation showed it was a sea-going ship. The exemption applied to ocean-going vessels other than vessels imported for breaking up, and no separate end-use restriction was imposed merely because the vessel was also used for uptopping or transhipping. The tribunal found that the lower authority had failed to consider the documentary and technical evidence and had relied on an inapposite Supreme Court decision involving a different vessel. The demand was therefore unsustainable and the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported vessel qualified as an ocean-going vessel entitled to exemption under Notification No. 262/58-Cus. dated 11-10-1958, and whether its use for uptopping/transhipping disqualified the exemption.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered ocean-going vessels other than vessels imported for breaking up, with liability arising only if such a vessel was subsequently broken up. The material on record showed that the vessel had been imported as a second-hand ocean-going vessel, had been registered and certified under the Merchant Shipping Act as a sea-going ship, had obtained statutory safety and navigation certificates, had been permitted for international trading, and had in fact undertaken foreign voyages. The Tribunal held that the Collector (Appeals) had failed to examine the documentary and technical evidence and had wrongly applied the earlier Supreme Court ruling concerning a different vessel that had been converted primarily for transhipment. The Tribunal further held that the relevant test was the vessel's nature, design, and capability at the time of importation, and that the notification did not impose an end-use restriction beyond import for breaking up.

Conclusion: The imported vessel was an ocean-going vessel within the meaning of the notification and remained eligible for exemption; the demand was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the vessel satisfied the exemption conditions and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory definition, whether a vessel is an ocean-going vessel for exemption purposes depends on its design, construction, certification, and capability at the time of importation, and the exemption cannot be denied merely because the vessel is also used for uptopping or transhipping unless it was imported for breaking up.

---