2018 (11) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ff Act and claimed benefit of Exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 (S.No.352). This exemption was available to all the goods falling under 8901 of the Customs Tariff Act excluding vessels and other floating structures as are imported for breaking-up. The department sought to classify the goods under 8905.9090 of Customs Tariff Act and charge it to duty applicable since exemption notification 21/2002-Cus is not applicable to the goods falling under 8905. The original authority has passed a speaking order confirming the classification under 8905.9090 of Customs Tariff Act and finalised the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who, vide the impugned order, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant that the vessel in question is meant for carrying goods from one place to other and the cranes in question have only been installed to facilitate loading and unloading of goods and they, by themselves, do not perform main function. It is the case of the revenue that once the cranes have been installed, their main function is that of cranes and storage of the vessel is secondary and therefore, the goods are classifiable under 8905.9090. Consequently, the benefit of exemption notification is not available. In his speaking order, original authority has recorded in Para 5 as follows: "5. I have carefully gone through the case records, technical literature, written and oral submissions of the importer, case laws cited by the importer vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch are incomplete and the two cranes are located on the star board side of the vessel. I find that the structure is not meant for carrying the goods or persons, but to carry the two hydraulic cranes placed on the deck. I, therefore, find that the navigability of the vessel is not its prime function. The appellants have contended that it is dumb barge. I do not find any mention of the cargo hold in the barge except the mention of two incomplete cargo holds on the deck. I, therefore, find the barge to be a vessel designed to carry the cranes on the deck." 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the vessel in question is only a barge and is not primarily meant for the cranes and hence it must be classified under Customs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e been incorporated on the deck. • Two holds above the deck level. The holds in the form of hoppers have been constructed to hold about tons of homogenous cargoes. The structure is incomplete. • Two 30 ton electro hydraulic cranes which are located on the starboard side of the vessel. • An all steel structure in the form of an accommodation with three decks. The structure is incomplete. • An all steel wielded structure (on the S side and abreast of forward hold)." 7. The capacity of the vessel has been mentioned in the International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize as gross tonnage - 4691 tons and net tonnage - 1407 tons. Thus it is evident that there was capacity of about 1407 tons i....