https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393127 A vessel engaged under a long-term cable maintenance contract was treated as a foreign-going vessel because section 2(21)(ii) turns on the nature and continuity of its operational engagement, not on sporadic movement in territorial waters. It was therefore eligible for the section 87 exemption, while stores consumed during actual operations within Indian territorial waters remained dutiable. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent proof of suppression or wilful misdeclaration, as the department had long been aware of the vessel's operations through declarations, correspondence, and boardings. Confiscation and penalties could not stand, and duty was confined to limited verification for the normal period. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393127 A vessel engaged under a long-term cable maintenance contract was treated as a foreign-going vessel because section 2(21)(ii) turns on the nature and continuity of its operational engagement, not on sporadic movement in territorial waters. It was therefore eligible for the section 87 exemption, while stores consumed during actual operations within Indian territorial waters remained dutiable. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent proof of suppression or wilful misdeclaration, as the department had long been aware of the vessel's operations through declarations, correspondence, and boardings. Confiscation and penalties could not stand, and duty was confined to limited verification for the normal period. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 18 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393127