Ship's stores test for reefer container compressors rejected; conditional import exemption also failed for lack of registration proof.
Compressors fitted to reefer containers were held not to be ship's stores under para 11(d) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, because a marine container remains multimodal transport equipment and does not become part of the ship merely by being carried on board or receiving electricity from it; the confiscation order was therefore upheld on this ground. The alternative claim to free import under Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy also failed because the exemption was conditional on registration with the Directorate General of Shipping, and no proof of such registration was produced. The appeal failed and the confiscation order remained undisturbed.
Issues: (i) Whether compressors fitted to reefer containers could be treated as ship's stores under para 11(d) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955. (ii) Whether the alternative claim to free import under Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy was available in the absence of proof of registration with the Directorate General of Shipping.
Issue (i): Whether compressors fitted to reefer containers could be treated as ship's stores under para 11(d) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.
Analysis: The relevant test was whether the containers and their compressors formed part of the ship or merely goods carried by ship. The Tribunal held that a marine container is designed for multimodal use and is not converted into a ship component merely because it is carried on board or receives electricity from the ship. The reasoning rejected an over-expansive construction that would treat all cargo or every item electrically connected to the ship as ship's stores.
Conclusion: The compressors fitted to reefer containers were not ship's stores and the confiscation order could not be disturbed on that basis.
Issue (ii): Whether the alternative claim to free import under Entry 12 of Appendix 6 of the Import Policy was available in the absence of proof of registration with the Directorate General of Shipping.
Analysis: The exemption under the Import Policy was conditional upon registration with the Directorate General of Shipping for ship repairing units. No evidence of such registration was produced, and no ground was shown to interfere with that finding.
Conclusion: The alternative import-policy claim failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety and the order of confiscation was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods used in multimodal transport do not become ship's stores merely because they are carried on board a vessel or receive ship-generated power, and a conditional import exemption cannot be claimed without proof of satisfaction of the prescribed eligibility requirement.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
