TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1023
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... giving details thereof as mentioned in the IGM (IGM No. 1295/97 dated 5/11/1997 and Rotation No. 1324/97) for dutiable items. Customs authorities did not insist on filing of Bill of Entry at that time. By Notification No. 17/2001 dated 1/3/2001 complete exemption from payment of Custom duty was withdrawn and duty of 5% was introduced. 2.1 The Tug was abruptly seized on 20/12/2011 by Customs Preventive. However it was allowed provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act on the condition of filing the Bill of Entry, submission of bond of 100% assessable value which was taken to be the value of Tug in 1997, Bank guarantee of 10% of assessable value and payment of appropriate duty at 15.14% on the assessable value. The appellant approached the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court, who vide order dated 13/2/2014 directed Customs to allow the release without payment of Customs duty and on execution of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 10 Lakhs and a Bond. In its order the High Court observed that as the Custom Authorities have permitted the use of the vessel all these years as imported goods Custom authorities are not justified in abruptly seizing the vessel in question The Revenue is not justif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en to be that of 1997 i.e. Rs. 4,81,66,900/- whereas the surveyor by report dated 20/2/2012 opined the current value of Tug as Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. Further the adjudicating authority confiscated the Tug under Section 111(f) and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs without determining margin of profit which is mandatory under Section 125. He also confirmed duty of Rs. 92,46,015/- under Section 125(2) alongwith appropriate interest which was not the proposal in the show cause notice. He placed reliance placed on the observations of the Honble High Court in judgment dated 11/1/2012 in Writ Petition No. 2921/2011 filed by Seamac Ltd. holding that for securing provisional release of the vessel under Section 110(A), Revenue would not be justified in taking original value of the vessel. Reliance is also placed on the High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 104/2012 dated 13/2/2012 in the case of Great Offshore Ltd. in which the High Court, while deciding the case of provisional release, observed that since the seized vessel was imported prior to 2000, prima facie, custom duty on the said vessel were not payable. Ld. Counsel also relied upon Tribunal order A/1110/14/CSTB/C-1 dated 2/7/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ette, in this behalf shall, in the case of a vessel or an aircraft, deliver to the proper officer an import manifest prior to the arrival of the vessel or the aircraft, as the case may be, and in the case of a vehicle, an import report within twelve hours after its arrival in the customs station, in the prescribed form and if the import manifest or the import report or any part thereof, is not delivered to the proper officer within the time specified in this sub-section and if the proper officer is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for such delay, the person-in-charge or any other person referred to in this sub-section, who caused such delay, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees." The Commissioner also refers to the Import Manifest Vessels Regulations 1971(hereinafter referred as Regulations) which provide the format and procedure for filing the Import Manifest in respect of the imported goods. The finding is that if the vessel was brought as imported goods itself and not as a conveyance only, it should have been specifically mentioned in the IGM. This was not done; instead the IGM only declared the imported cargo, that is, the ship stores an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods shall be liable to confiscation..(f) any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned. Even if the vessel is treated as goods, it was not liable to duty at the time of its import in 1997. Therefore, the vessel cannot be treated as dutiable goods. In the case of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2001 (128) ELT 21 (S.C.) it was held that goods on which no duty is chargeable under the tariff or by way of exemption notification will not be regarded as dutiable goods. Therefore clearly Section 111(f) is not applicable and goods are not liable to confiscation. Contravention of Section 32 is not possible as there is no question of unloading a vessel. Therefore the finding that the vessel is liable for confiscation for violation of Section 32 is also not sustainable. 6.4. Revenue has cited Sections 46 & 15 holding that consequent to the order of Honble Bombay High Court granting provisional release, the Bill of Entry was filed under Section 46 and the rate of duty on the date of filing of Bill of Entry would be applicable for assessment and determination of d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be a most unreasonable proposition. More so when Customs never insisted on filing a Bill of Entry for the import of the vessel and Customs continued to give clearance for coastal runs. For these reasons we hold that there was no deliberate suppression of facts to invoke the provisions of Section 28(4) for demanding duty. 6.6. We have been shown the case of another vessel named Ocean Ruby imported in 1993 when duty was nil, the import of the vessel was regularized in 2003 on the Bill of Entry filed for import of stores simply by making an additional entry on the Bill of Entry to the effect that the vessel is also imported at nil; rate of duty. The matter attained finality by passing of CESTAT Order A/1190/2014/CSTB/C-I dt. 2.7.2014. We also note that the Indian National Shipowners Association made a Reference No. CEO/145/2011 dt. October 12, 2011 to CBEC giving a list of about 200 vessels out of which more than 100 were imported before 2001 when duty was introduced. It was made clear that Bill of Entry were not filed in these cases. The Association requested for condoning the delay in filing of the Bill of Entry as a procedural delay. It appears that action has not been taken ....