AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996. 3. The vessels known as SEAMEC-I, SEAMEC-II and SEAMEC-III being multipurpose support deep sea vessel were intended to be used on charter contracts with different companies. Those were specifically designed and built to undertake shore based maintenance/removal and installation, platform repairs-subsea/topside, riser repairs-subsea, fire fighting, rescue and pollution control without being capable of commercially used as carriage for passenger or cargo commercially. All the three vessels, at the time of import thereof, were classified under CTH 89059090 and such classification continued to be maintained by Customs even on re-import thereof from time to time upon repair thereof abroad. 4. The vessels stated above having been registered with Director General Shipping were required to file Shipping Bill at the time of departure from India and convertible into foreign run. Similarly, Bill of Entry for such vessels on arrival in India before converting to coastal run was required to be filed under law. All Ocean Going Vessels were exempted from payment of duty till 28.02.2001. Consequently any repairs, carried out abroad till then, were chargeable to ni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m levy of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) on goods falling under specific sub-heading of Chapter 89 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India. * Notification No.133-Cus., dated 19.03.1987- 8901.10, 8901.20, 8901.30, 8901.90, 8902.00, 8904.00, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906.00. * As per Sr. No.179 of the table to Notification No.36-Cus., dated 23.07.1996- 8901.10, 8901.20, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906.00. * As per Sr. No.194 of the table to Notification No.11/97-Cus., dated 01.03.1997- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. * As per Sr. No.228 of the table to Notification No.23/98-Cus., dated 2.6.1998- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. * As per Sr. No.250 of the table to Notification No.20/99-Cus., dated 28.2.1999- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. * As per Sr. No.298 of the table to Notification No.16/2000-Cus., dated 01.03.2000- 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10, 8905.90 and 8906. * As per Sr. No.322 of the table to Notification No.17/2001-Cus., dated 01.03.2001, Basic Customs Duty @5% ad valorem was Chargeable goods falling under sub-heading Nos. 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905.10 or 8905.90. * As per Sr. No.353 of the tabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the goods required under this sub-section, the proper officer may, pending the production of such information, permit him, previous to the entry thereof (a) to examine the goods in the presence of an officer of customs, or (b) to deposit the goods in a public warehouse appointed under section 57 without warehousing the same. (2) Save as otherwise permitted by the proper officer, a bill of entry shall include all the goods mentioned in the bill of lading or other receipt given by the carrier to the consignor. (3) The importer shall present the bill of entry under sub-section (1) before the end of the next day following the day (excluding holidays) on which the aircraft or vessel or vehicle carrying the goods arrives at a customs station at which such goods are to be cleared for home consumption or warehousing : Provided that a bill of entry may be presented within thirty days of the expected arrival of the aircraft or vessel or vehicle by which the goods have been shipped for importation into India: Provided further that where the bill of entry is not presented within the time so specified and the proper officer is satisfied that there was No sufficient cause for such delay, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst SEAMEC-I resulted with following consequence of law: - 1) The vessel "Seamec I" was classifiable under CTH 89059090 and thus liable to duty. 2) The value of the repair charges of the vessel "Seamec I" was determined to be Rs. 37,16,94,698/- CIF (Rupees Thirty-seven crores Sixteen lakhs Ninety four thousand six hundred and ninety eight only) for assessment purpose. 3) Demand of duty evaded was Rs. 5,68,69,285/- (Rupees Five crores Sixty eight lakhs Sixty nine thousand two hundred eighty five only) under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28(8) ibid thereafter, along with applicable interest under Section 28AB (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28AA. An amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- deposited and credited to the government treasury vide cash memo No.196 dated 16.12.2011 was appropriated towards the duty liability and adjusted from the total duty liability. 4) Confiscation of the vessel Seamec I was ordered and that was valued at Rs. 58.5 Crores CIF as per the statement of Hull & Machinery Insurance under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However an option to the importer was given to redeem the same on payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... within 30 days from the date of the communication of the order, penalty was limited to 25% of the duty and interest so determined. 11) The vessel "Seamec III" was classifiable under CTH 89059090 and thus liable to duty. 12) The value of the repair charges of the vessel "Seamec III" was determined to be Rs. 71,00,69,589/- CIF (Rupees Seventy-one crores Sixty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty nine only) for assessment purpose. 13) Demand of duty evaded was Rs. 10,86,40,641/- (Rupees Ten crores Eighty-six lakhs forty thousand Six hundred Forty one only) under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28(8) ibid thereafter, along with applicable interest under Section 28AB (as it existed till 08.04.2011) or Section 28AA. An amount of Rs. 4,14,00,000/- deposited and credited to the government treasury vide cash memo No.194 dated 16.12.2011 was appropriated towards the duty liability and adjusted from the total duty liability. 14) Confiscation of the vessel Seamec III was ordered and that was valued at Rs. 90 Crores CIF as per the statement of Hull & Machinery Insurance under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However an option t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the material period classifying the same under CTH 89059090 on the value of repair including freight forming part of the assessable value thereof. TABLE - 2 Appeal No. Vessel Actual date of imports & filing of bills of entry for consumables. Rate of Customs Duty (1) (2) (3) (4) CTH 8901 CTH 8906 CTH 8905 C/87659/13 M.S.V Seamec-I 07.06.2002 30.09.2004 20.09.2005 14.12.2007 05.08.2010 All duties Nil All duties Nil BCD-5% CVD-Nil SAD-4% C/87660/13 M.S.V Seamec-II 29.10.2002 02.02.2005 08.11.2010 All duties Nil All duties Nil BCD-5% CVD-Nil SAD-4% C/87536/13 M.S.V Seamec- III 19.10.2002 21.04.2003 02.08.2005 01.04.2011 08.11.2011 All duties Nil All duties Nil BCD-5% CVD-Nil SAD-4% 11. According to appellant, the vessels as per the Table-I above were foreign-going vessel as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act and not liable to duty at all. Appropriate intimations were given to the Customs authority when the vessels left India and returned back to India as per following particulars. appearing in Table - 3, 4 and 5 below in respect of all the three vessels. Seamec- I: TABLE - 3 Date on which Seamec-I came back Bill of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 46 of the Act in respect of value of repair including freight and insurance when the vessels were re-imported under Section 20 of Customs Act into India from time to time upon their repair and thereby duty payable on such value being evaded, adjudications were made to recover such duty with penal consequence of law followed. Seamec-I: TABLE - 6 Date on which Seamec-I went out Date on which the vessel was converted from costal run to foreign run Page No.of appeal No.C/87659/2013 containing the Order of Superintendent of Customs 27.4.2002 21.11.2002 8.6.2004 3.6.2004 147 7.2.20054 2.2005 132A 25.5.2005 30.6.2006 13.5.2007 8.7.2008 6.6.2010 04.06.2010 Page No.79 of Volume-VII Seamec-II: TABLE - 7 Date on which Seamec II went out Date on which the vessel was converted from costal run to oreign run Page No.of appeal No.C/87659/2013 containing the Order of Superintendent of Customs 6.9.2002 1.12.2004 30.11.2004 135 15.7.2005 13.7.2005 133 24.6.2006 6.7.2011 1.7.2010 139A Seamec-III: TABLE - 8 Date on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of seizure of the vessels without violation of any of the provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. But show cause notice invoked Section 111(m) of the said Act even though in worst circumstances that may attract only Section111(f) or 111(e) of the said Act. So also it is well settled law that when classification issue is involved, there cannot be confiscability without finding the ingredients of the law for such confiscation being present. So also No adjudication is warranted under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 15. At this stage learned Authorised Representative for Revenue submits that the show cause notice has not only invoked under Section 28 but also Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked. When confiscability arose, penalty was warranted under section 124 of the Act. There is No time-bar prescribed by law for penalising an assessee. 16. Appellant's further submission is that the rate of duty should be determined under law for which there is specific provision therein. Accordingly, there should be No confusion for application of different rates of duty when rates structure has been depicted by appellant in its Table No.2 for which appellant has reli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant submitted that Revenue failed to prove their stand that the vessels are classifiable under CTH 8905 9090. Appellant relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay - 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) in this regard. 21. Inviting attention to serial No.353 to Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 01/03/2002, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that there shall be No duty payable on the vessel which is classifiable under CTH 8901 90 00. It was further submitted that without any allegation on classification in the show cause notice, Customs authority attempted to bring the goods into CTH 8905 in the adjudication travelling beyond the purview of the show cause notice. 22. Placing page 1 exhibiting the photographs of the vessel appearing in Volume VII of the paper book, appellant says that the character of the vessel is evident therefrom and that is also well explained in Para 12.1 of the synopsis. What is called "supply vessel" has been defined in page 337 and Para 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 in Volume III of paper book. Therefore had the vessels entered into India for the first time that would have been "goods". Whether the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....what diving vessel means. According to them at page 184 the meaning thereof reads as under: "Diving support vessel (DSV) - A vessel provided with diving equipment and used for underwater work such as the maintenance and inspection of mobile platforms, pipelines and their connections, well-heads, etc. Today's DSV is a highly sophisticated vessel that may be of mono, multi-hull or semi-submersible construction. The DSV is fitted with a moonpool - a hole in the middle of the vessel open to the sea - through which divers, remotely-operated vehicles and other equipment is passed to and from the worksite. These vessels may also have A-frame at the stern, used for raising and lowering heavy pieces of equipment, including manned submersibles, into the water. These vessels can maintain an almost exact position over the worksite during these operations. In order to accomplish this, they have fitted with very sophisticated positioning equipment." 25. Even the picture of the diving support vessel appearing at page 184 of the Wartsila Encyclopedia of Ship Technology does not support the case of the appellant to contend that it was a passenger carrying or cargo carrying vessel. The terms of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ire fighting operations of offshore installations, rigs, vessels, tankers, etc. in offshore fields, in port and near shore areas. The maximum height of the platform would be around 50 m from MSL. 1.2.7 To provide safety and rescue support to various offshore installations, jack up rigs, floaters. etc. 1.2.8 To carry out/assist in rescue operations and fulfill role of rapid intervention vessel" 1.2.9 To carry out pollution control, operations. 1.2.10 To provide medical facilities within the capabilities of the vessel. 1.2.11 To accommodate additional personnel including rescued personnel as and when required. 1.212 To carry out heli-deck duty for helicopter operations. 1.2.13 To carry out transportation of personnel, material and equipment as and when required. 1.2.14 To provide crane assistance to offshore installations for transfer of material and personnel for remedial work at the boat landing area/spider deck level and crane assistance to platform within the capability of the vessel/outreach & load capacity of the crane. 1.2.15 To carry out any other services desired by the CORPORATION within the capability of the vessel. 26. According to Revenue, when page 172 of vo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Act since those were not capable of carrying any passenger or cargo for their peculiar nature being specifically built to serve purpose of ONGC contract. 30. The vessel in question being only meant for home consumption were used under a contract with ONGC for a specific purpose, without being capable of transporting any cargo or passenger commercially. Therefore, adjudication was made properly holding the vessels re-imported were "goods" for levy of duty. To support its contention, Revenue relies on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Super Cassette Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2008 (225) ELT 401 (SC) and submits that ratio of this case called for valuation of the vessel on re-import for the purpose of levy of customs duty. 31. Sri Mondal further says that the synopsis filed on behalf of Revenue forms part his argument on various points including the points on classification, valuation, levy as well as confiscation and penalties deserve consideration. He says that page 109 of appeal record brings out that appellants categorically admitted that the vessels were offshore support and diving vessels and Para 3 and 4 thereof read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- Ships 8901 1020 - Launches 8901 1030 - Boats 8901 1040 - Barges 8901 1090 - Other 8901 20 00 - Tankers 8901 30 00 - Refrigerated Vessels, other than those of Sub-heading 8901 20 8901 90 00 Other vessels for the transport of the goods and other vessels for the transport of both persons and goods." 33. Inviting attention to Para 11.2(c) of the notes of argument of the appellant, it was submitted by Revenue that the vessels were not at all meant for commercial transportation of cargo or passenger, not being built for the same nor designed for such purpose since object of the appellant was to accommodate only 89 persons which includes 42 crews and 47 specialised personnel such as workers of platform; divers; (3) surveyors; (4) welders and (5) rescue persons. When a specialised vessel is used for the work of ONGC as per drawing and design of the vessel placed by the appellant, that demonstrates that all the three vessels were not at all meant for commercial transportation of passenger or cargo nor can also be used as vessel. 34. Relying on page 333 of volume III of the paper book of appellant, Revenue submits that the vessels in question were sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be reopened in terms of Para 6 of the said judgment. Accordingly all the three vessels falling under CTH 8905 90 do not call for re-classification thereof under CTH 89019090 when the character, nature as well as structure thereof remained the same all along. 38. Inviting attention to Section 2(25) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, Revenue submits that at No point of time the vessels were cargo ship or passenger ship as defined in terms of that law and that establishes that No passengers were carried by the appellant as its commercial operation in terms of that definition. He also relies on section 2(21) of the said Act to submit that it was not at all a cargo vessel, not serving any purpose of either cargo vessel or passenger vessel except being a diving vessel serving specific purpose of ONGC. Appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof to overturn the contention of Revenue. Revenue relied on the decision in the case of Raj Shipping Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs - 2015-TIOL-1405-CESTAT-MUM and Arcadia Shipping v. Commissioner of Customs - 2006 (201) ELT 139 (Tri-Mum) to support its contentions. 39. Placing para 6.1 of Raj Shipping decision (supra), Revenue says ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g attention to page 294 and 296, Revenue submits that the character of SEAMEC - III neither being cargo nor a passenger vessel, does not support case of the appellant. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Srikumar Agencies - 2008 (232) ELT 577 (SC) Revenue submits the facts and evidence of each case decides its fate without reliance on the decision of a different case which are not based on the given facts, evidence as well as law applicable to the given case in hand. Therefore, the present cases should be decided on the basis of their governing facts as well as the evidence that are placed in the course of argument against these appeals and law applicable to the case, taking the character of the vessel into consideration. 43. So far as the issue of confiscation is concerned, Revenue's submission is that page 82 of appeal folder containing show cause notice categorically brought to the notice of the appellant about the cost of repair/modification and installation of machinery carried out not being disclosed to Revenue filing bill of entry in that behalf under section 46 of the Act, appropriate adjudication sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imposable following the decision of Tribunal in the case of Jindal Drilling & Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay - 2001 (138) ELT 1335 and that has been done. Placing Para 22 to 23 of the judgment to support its contention, Sri Mondal submitted that non-disclosure of the material fact to the Customs authorities not only invites penal proceedings but also does not make the proceedings time-barred. 46. Placing volume VII of paper book of the appellant, Revenue invites attention to page 79 thereof to show that the correspondence dated 054/06/2010 communicating conversion of the vessel from coastal run to foreign run was a mere pretext when there was No.scope for appellant to convert the vessel to foreign going vessel since that was not being capable of transporting any passenger or cargo commercially. Documents filed by appellant contained misrepresented facts and appellant failed to rebut all the allegations of Revenue. Relying on Para 3.3 of Shipping Corporation of India decision reported in 2014 (312) ELT 305 (Tri.-Mum), Revenue explained that whether the vessel was goods or conveyance that can be ascertained reading Para 6.3 thereof. When a vessel is goods, cost o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Act, 1962 to confiscate the vessels. Section 111(m) of the said Act is not applicable for non-fulfilment of ingredients thereof. The Shipping Corporation of India decisions is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case since that case related to the first import goods. Present cases of the appellant are that vessels were not original imports. After original import of vessels those were running on the coastal belt and when those were going out of India and re-imported upon their repair that is not original import for which that decision shall not apply to the appellant. 49. Relying on the decision of the Tribunal in Hede Ferrominas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2016 (334) ELT 540 (Tri.-Mumbai) it is submitted by learned Sr. Counsel that the age old customs practice should not be deviated, procedures should not weigh to hold that the original vessel of the appellant came to India on re-import is still goods and liable to duty, penalty and confiscation. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Noble Asset Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai - 2006 (205) ELT 901 (Tri. - Mumbai) and serial No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant. Appellant's submission is that Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proof to bring the vessel into CTH 8905. Mere navigability is not the criteria for disturbing the classification. 53. All offshore supply vessels prevent Revenue to levy duty thereon as "goods" reclassifying the same on re-importation thereof. The diving was one of the functions of the appellant. That does not bring the vessels for change of their classification. Accordingly, entire argument of Revenue that it has discharged its burden of proof is of No sense for which all the appeals of appellant may be allowed. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL 54. The contract between the appellant and ONGC reveals that appellant having marine experience agreed to carry out following activities as embodied under Schedule -I & II to the Annexure-I of the agreement with ONGC (copy of the sample agreement available at page 141 of the paper book Vol. VII submitted by appellant). "SPECIFICATIONS, SCOPE OF WORK AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT AIR RANGE DIVING SUPPORT VESSEL (ARDSV) SCHEDULE-I 1.1 Background. Inspection, Maintenance & Repair (IMR) group of Offshore Logistics, the CORPORATION, Mumbai ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... To accommodate additional personnel including rescued personnel as and when required. 1.212 To carry out heli-deck duty for helicopter operations. 1.2.13 To carry out transportation of personnel, material and equipment as and when required. 1.2.14 To provide crane assistance to offshore installations for transfer of material and personnel for remedial work at the boat landing area/spider deck level and crane assistance to platform within the capability of the vessel/outreach & load capacity of the crane. 1.2.15 To carry out any other services desired by the CORPORATION within the capability of the vessel. 1.3 General All operations including marine & diving operations should be carried out in accordance with internationally accepted goods and safe practices, as per IMCA guidelines, the CORPORATION's code of practice for diving & marine operations. SCHEDULE - 2 Technical requirements to carry out the above scope of work 2.1 All Diving Support vessel as per specification given in Schedule-3. 2.2 Diving equipment as per specifications given in Schedule-4 2.3 Work equipment under regular category as per specifications given in Schedule-5 and call out equipment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s insurance incurred, there was escapement of levy of duty, Revenue having lost the duty imposable against re-import on the value of the repair/modification and machinery installed as well as freight and insurance incurred, adjudication was made and resulted with the consequence of adjudication as stated herein before. It was the obligation of the importer in law to file the Bills of Entry under Section 46 of the Act on import as well as re-import under Section 20 of the Act. 58. According to law of Customs on import and re-import, when Bill of Entry is filed in respect of the goods imported, necessary particulars of import are furnished therein for examination by Customs. Descriptions relating to import appearing in the Bill of Entry are required to be verified by the importer as to the truthfulness thereof. Customs Authority has been vested with the power to call for the invoice and any other documents related to import of goods covered by the said Bills of Entry to examine truth of the declaration in the Bill of Entry. Appellant failed to file Bills of Entry in respect re-import of all the three vessels made from to time to examine whether there were any repair/renewal/ modific....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....airport in India or not, and includes - (i) any naval vessel of a foreign Government taking part in any naval exercises; (ii) any vessel engaged in fishing or any other operations outside the territorial waters of India; (iii) any vessel or aircraft proceeding to a place outside India for any purpose whatsoever; [Emphasis supplied] 61. In view of above mandate of law, mere filing of the documents at page 80 and 81 of the paper book does not exonerate the appellant from its duty liability without filing the Bills of Entry disclosing the value of the repair/renewal/modification and installation of machinery done to the vessel including freight and insurance charged incurred. Therefore, there was violation of law made by the appellant relating to filing of Bills of Entry which is well established. Similarly, merely because the vessel was running from one coast to another during its movement while executing contract with ONGC, that does not entitle the appellant to plead that the vessels were foreign-going vessels. Accordingly the re-imports were not immune from levy. 62. When the vessels remained as "goods" all along i.e. from point of first entry to India and during the re-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in accordance with the law. 65. For the violation of law made by appellant, as stated herein before for No filing of Shipping Bills and Bills of Entry against exit from time to time and re-imports in respect of cost/value of repair and freight and insurance incurred, appellant was bound to face the consequences of adjudication as has been directed by adjudication order, which does not call for interference except to the extent modified by this order. Accordingly, it may be stated that Revenue's plea that disclosure of stores and consumables for inventorization by the Customs upon re-import of the vessel, shall not exonerate the appellant from levy of duty in law, has force and sustains. 66. Plea of the appellant on limitation that in any circumstance, duty liability beyond 5 years of the date of show-cause notice is not recoverable deserves consideration on the facts of the case and law applicable. Learned adjudicating authority shall take such proposition into consideration and issue demand notice accordingly. It may be stated that bar is only against recovery but not against the levy which arises when event of levy occurs Normal period shall be subject to levy and recoverab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an order is appellable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, then the order is not liable to be questioned and the matter is not to be reopened in a proceeding for refund which if we may term it so is in the nature of execution of a decree/order. Therefore appellant has No ground to argue further that the vessel on re-import needs to be reclassified when No Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant on re-import of the vessels for there was escapement of levy. 70. Relying on the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Harbans Lal Vs. C. C. E. & C - 1993 (67) ELT 20 (SC) Revenue has also correctly submitted that the validity of notice under Section 124 of the Act, cannot be questioned on limitation for which No period has been laid in law within which it is required to be given. The Court further held that the ratio laid down in the case of Charandas Malhotra - 1983 (13) ELT 1477 (SC) settles the position of law that section 124 is independent. The Bombay High Court in M/s. Mohanlal Devdanbhai Choksey and Others. v. M.P. Mondker and Others [AIR 1977 (Bombay) 320 = 1988 (37) E.L.T. 528 (Bom.)], correctly app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unicipality : AIR 1979 SC 1721). There it was held that the precise meaning to be given to those words would depend upon the context in which they are used. It is in a primary sense that the word "consumption" is understood as using the article in such a manner as to destroy its identity. It has a wider meaning which does not involve the complete using up on the commodity. 72. Whenever an order confiscating the imported goods is passed, an option, as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Customs Act, is to be given to the person to pay fine in lieu of the confiscation and on such an order being passed according to sub-section (2) of Section 125, the person "shall in addition be liable to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods". A reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 125 together makes it clear that liability to pay duty arises under sub-section (2) in addition to the fine under sub-section (1). Therefore, where an order is passed for payment of customs duty along with an order of imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, it shall only be referable to sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act. It would not attract Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exercise of that power. 74. So far as imposition of redemption fine is concerned, taking into account that confiscation was warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, exercise of option in lieu of confiscation being permitted by law under Section 125 and learned authority having determined the value of cost of repair and freight which remained undisputed by appellants, that shall be as under as is mentioned in column 3 of Table below: - Appeal No (1) Redemption fine imposed in adjudication in Rs. (2) Redemption fine imposed by this order by Tribunal in Rs.(3) C/87569/13 3,75,00,000 1,00,00,000 C/87660/13 12,00,00,000 3,00,00,000 C/87536/13 7,00,00,000 2,00,00,000 75. So far levy of penalty is concerned; learned adjudicating authority had rightly considered such levy on the established violation of law as discussed above. He imposed penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act which should be equal to the amount of duty evaded as prescribed by that section. Accordingly that shall be recomputed by him taking into consideration of the duty liability re-determined in the manner indicated above by this order. 76. We have not ordere....