2017 (12) TMI 402

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce for alleged export of two aircrafts namely VT-REN Beechcraft 1900D (UE410) and VT-REQ Beechcraft 1900D (UE407) without filing any shipping bill at the port of export, as provided under Section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 and subsequent illegal import of the said two aircrafts without filing a bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 and evasion of payment of customs duties. 3. A letter dated 26.06.2015 was received from M/s. Indus-lnd Bank Limited, New Delhi informing that the appellant has sold aircraft VT-REM B-200/BB1700 in 2012 to M/s. INV-2R Leasing Company Limited which was already seized by Customs department; that the sale proceeds of USD 6 Million had also been received by the party through their bank. Based on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m.) Ld. advocate further submits that the issue, whether the aircrafts taken out of India after their initial clearance for home consumption and brought back to India amounts to export and import respectively, is no longer res-integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee in the case of Noble Asset Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai - 2006 (205) ELT 901 (Tri. Mum.). He further contends that even if the subsequent entry is import, the same is exempted under Notification No. 94/1996-Cus dated 16.12.1996. He also submits that identical show cause notices, in their own case, for other aircrafts were dropped by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Delhi vide orders-in-original dated 15.02.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....u of confiscation of Rs. 40 Crores was imposed. Duty amount of Rs. 56.51 Crores was confirmed and penalty of Rs. 15 Crores was imposed on the importer. The appellant appealed against the said Order-in-Original in CESTAT and the CESTAT granted them stay in Feb 2012 and waived pre-deposit till the disposal of the appeal. Since then, the said matter was pending before CESTAT, Delhi. It is also undisputed that subject aircrafts were, at the time of initial import, cleared for home consumption by filing bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, the aircrafts left the country without filing shipping bills under Section 50 of the Customs Act. They went to Colombo to be handed over to M/s. INV-2R Leasing Company Limited as pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ns goods brought into India from a place outside but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption. Therefore once any vessel e.g. the rig in the present case, is brought into India and assessed to duty and cleared for home consumption it would cease to be imported goods. Subsequently, if it acquires the characteristic of foreign going vessel, is not liable for payment of customs duty for the movements in and out of the country. In this regard, the definition of foreign going vessel is relevant. The definition states that foreign going vessel includes inter alia any vessel engaged in fishing or any other operation outside the territorial waters of India." "6. d (vi). The question whether the change of ownershi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....epairs in 1999 is not called for have already been dealt with above." "(v) There is another reason to justify the practice which has existed for non-levy of duty on every inward movement of foreign going vessel. This is for the reason that if import duty was payable on every inward movement of a vessel, it would have to be then refunded back by way of Drawback payments, whenever the vessel went to a non-designated location/out of India. Therefore, if a vessel carrying cargo arriving into Bombay Port say on May 1, 2006, would be liable to pay duty on the full value of that ship and the Shipping Company would then become entitled to refund of the said amount as Drawback, on May 6, 2006, under Section 74 of the Act, of the duty paid, ....