https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434168 The Supreme Court determined that the respondent was not considered an "importer" of the vessel and thus not liable for custom duty payment. The Court held that the date of permission granted for breaking the vessel established the importer, which was Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) in this case, not the respondent. Despite the Memorandum of Agreement placing custom duty liability on the respondent, the Court emphasized that liability under the Customs Act falls on the importer. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the respondent was not liable for custom duty payment. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434168 The Supreme Court determined that the respondent was not considered an "importer" of the vessel and thus not liable for custom duty payment. The Court held that the date of permission granted for breaking the vessel established the importer, which was Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) in this case, not the respondent. Despite the Memorandum of Agreement placing custom duty liability on the respondent, the Court emphasized that liability under the Customs Act falls on the importer. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the respondent was not liable for custom duty payment. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434168