2015 (2) TMI 1189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ready admitted by this Court being Customs Appeal (Lodging) No.33 of 2013. That is admitted on 26th September, 2013. Following that order, we admit all the Appeals of the Importers. They shall stand admitted on the similar questions as are to be found in the order of the Division Bench dated 26th September, 2013, which read thus : "a) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the vessel Smit Borneo was liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the premise that the vessel had not been declared as goods in the IGM even though the established practice was that the Customs authorities did not at the relevant point of time insist upon the filing of an IGM and Bill of Entry for the vessel as 'goods'....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on Shri Vijayan Chrysostom D'Souza ? Customs Appeal No. 10 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the Customs Duty demand in respect of the vessel in question is not sustainable in law ? (b) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on J.M. Baxi & Co. from Rs. 1,75,00,000/to Rs. 5,00,000/and setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/imposed on Shri Vijayan Chrysostom D'Souza ? Customs Appeal No. 11 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the Customs Duty demand in respect of the vessel in question is not sustainable in law ? (ii) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing penalty imposed under sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....jayan Chrysostom  D'souza ? Customs Appeal No. 23 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that the Customs Duty demand in respect of the vessel in question is not sustainable in law? (b) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in reducing penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on J.M. Baxi & Co. from Rs. 1,25,00,000/to Rs. 5,00,000/and setting aside the penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/imposed on Shri Vijayan Chrysostom D'souza ? Customs Appeal No. 47 of 2014 (a) Whether the CESTAT is right in law in holding that drawback of 95% of the duty paid on the vessel Posh GiantI would be available to Respondent No.1 under section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 since the vessel had gone back after....