TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he transshipment cargo by the Assistant Commissioner (Preventive), Custom House, Kandla, the officers of Kandla Custom House discovered that the vessel M.T. AL NIMS was not a vessel on foreign run. Therefore, the importer was asked to pay the duty due when copies of invoices No. 128/99 dated 12.04.99 and No. 128/99A dated 12.04.99 were produced. These were respectively for Singapore $11345.15 and US$ 2912.60. It transpired in the investigation that there was another parallel set of invoices with the same number and date, which had been submitted at the Chennai Custom House while applying for transshipment advice. The bill of lading had described the goods as nine pallets of marine paints and thinners. However, one of the two invoices No. 128/99A had covered Aluminium and Zinc anodes. Visits to the premises of the CHA, the cargo forwarder M/s. Metro Marine Services (P) Ltd., Chennai, who assisted the CHA in documentation for transshipment of imported cargo, M/s. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Indian executives of M/s. Jotun NOF (S) Pte. Ltd., indicated that the supplier M/s. Jotun NOF (S) Pte. Ltd., Singapore, had raised two sets of invoices, (o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; M/s. Metro Marine Services (P) Ltd. claimed in their appeal that the invoice received by them relating to thinners and paints was submitted by to Madras Custom House. They were not aware of the existence of another set of invoice. The transshipment application was filed for transhipment of nine pallets which included anodes also. They were under the bona fide belief that the consignment was not liable to duty. They prayed that they may be exonerated. 3.1. M/s. Bharat Marine Company, CHA had filed the transshipment application dated 23/04/99 with the Assistant Commissioner Customs for transhipment of nine pallets of ship stores arrived per vessel MV TIGER PEARL V-700. They believed the instructions of the importer that the consignment was meant for a vessel on foreign run eligible for duty free import (transshipment under Section 87 of the Customs Act). The documents furnished to the Custom house for transshipment of the consignment indicated that the nine pallets transhipped covered also anodes alleged to be suppressed in the declaration. They were not aware of the second set of invoices furnished before Kandla Customs. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellants was without basis. 5. Ld DR reiterated the findings contained in the impugned order. 6. We have carefully considered the case records and the rival submissions. We find that in adjudication the Commissioner confiscated the impugned goods on the ground that the importer had misdeclared the description, quantity and value of the goods imported. In the impugned order, the Commissioner found that Shri M.B. Govindaraj, of M/s. Bharat Marine Company, Chennai, Shri M.Karuppiah and Shri Bairavasundaram of M/s. Metro Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. had transshipped the impugned consignment on the bonafide belief that the same was meant for use on a foreign going vessel. The Commissioner also found that S/Sh. Dinesh Prabhu and B.K. Mukerjee, of M/s Jotun NOF (S) Pte. Ltd. also had believed that the paints, thinners and anodes had been meant for transshipment to Kandla for use as ship stores on the foreign going vessel M.T.AL NIMS. The Commissioner also recorded a finding in the impugned order that the appellants S/Sh. Dinesh R. Prabhu, B.K. Mukerjee and M/s. Jotun NOF (S) Pte. Ltd., had been misled by M/s. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., to believe that the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essel. Shri Dinesh Prabhu has in his written submission dated 28.04.2000 has also stated that, their company were made to believe by M/s. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kandla that goods supplied were eligible for duty free imports in India. Thus, it is evident from facts & circumstances that, M/s. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kandla has mislead the supplier that goods were being supplied to a foreign going vessel as a ship stores". We find from the transshipment application that the imported goods had been transshipped for warehousing at Kandla without payment of duty. The packing list submitted along with the application before Chennai Customs had included all the imported goods including Aluminium and Zinc anodes. We find that in terms of Section 85 of the Customs Act, any goods entered for warehousing in respect of which the importer makes and subscribes to a declaration that the goods are to be supplied as stores to vessel or aircrafts without payment of duty, the proper officer may permit the goods to be warehoused without the goods being assessed duty. In terms of Section 86 of the Act, any stores imported in a vessel or aircraft may be transferred t....