TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Master of the vessel and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on M/s. Costal Shipping Links (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 10,000/- on M/s. Sea Blue Shipyard. Aggrieved by the said order, three appeals have been filed, one by M/s. Costal Shipping Links (I) Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s. Costal Shipping Links (I) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of M.V. Minnath and the third appeal is by Mr. Mohammed Adam against the penalty imposed on him. Since the impugned order is common, therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by the common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of specific intelligence that a vessel on foreign run had been brought into India and diverted for repairs to a private shipyard, officers of Customs Preventive Commissionerate boarded the vessel M.V.Minnath berthed at Sea Blue Shipyard Limited, Vypeen. On 20.10.2012, verifications conducted on board the said vessel revealed that the said vessel was of Maldives registry and was on foreign run from Male to Cochin. It was seen that the said vessel had filed a Nil IGM No. 2046672 dated 17.10.2012, that the declared purpose of arrival of the vessel was 'dry dock repair' and it had arrived at the said ship....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10.2012 was also issued. As the 'Chief Engineer's log book (Quarterly)' for the period from the 11th of August contained details of fuel consumption on board the vessel, the same was also seized under the mahazar. 2.6 During the course of investigation, the statements of various persons were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and after the completion of the investigation, a show-cause notice was issued and after following the due process of law, the learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand and imposed various penalties. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed against the evidence on record. He further submitted that the vessel belonging to this line have been calling at Customs Port as a matter of routine for the past few years for repairs in the private non bonded shipyard belonging to Cochin Port. The details of such vessels which have availed these facilities at Cochin Port Drydock belonging to Cochin Port have been given by the appellant. He further submitted that when M/s. Sea Blue Shipyard, Vypeen, C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lier vessels that had arrived at Cochin for same purpose and would go ahead with the repairs at the Shipyard. There was no indication of the Master of the vessel or to the agent that the vessel had to be declared in the IGM cargo. Further, on the following day, the rummage party of the Preventive Commissionerate entered the vessel and upon noticing that some items of stores landed from the vessel lying on the wharf of the shipyard, they attributed that these stores have been unauthorizedly landed and smuggled out of the ship even that these had been landed from the vessel for dry-docking and after entry inwards had been granted by the Preventive Officer. During rummage nothing untoward was noticed except for some minor discrepancies in the declaration of stores. He further submitted that the confiscation of foreign going vessel and imposition of redemption fine and penalty are contrary to the established practice followed in respect of the vessels of this line entering the port for repair from foreign destination. In fact it means to discouraging the shipyards in India undertaking repairs to foreign vessels employing local technical personnel for same and incidentally earning forei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods to be cleared for home consumption. 5.2 He further submitted that after this Circular, the position with regard to vessels coming to India for repair, changes and it is now considered as a goods imported into India and therefore, they are required to file IGM and Bill of Entry which has not been done in this case. He also submitted that earlier instances given by the appellant where no such objection was raised pertains to the period prior to this Circular and after the issue of the Circular, the vessels coming to Indian Ports for repair, for dry docking and repair has to file IGM and Bill of Entry which was not done in this case and therefore the Commissioner has rightly passed the order of confiscation and imposition of penalties. He relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CC (Import), Mumbai: 2014 (312) ELT 305 (Tri.-Mumbai) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order to the extent of confiscation of the vessel M.V. Minnath under Section 111(f), 111(g) and 111(h) of the Customs Act is justified and its release on payment of redemption of th....