TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....does not apply to previous imports of vessels in terms of Notification 21/2002-Cus. dated 1st March, 2002, and, (ii) Notification No. 94-96-Cus. it is applicable and relevant in cases of re-imports, where a initial import occurred prior to 17th March, 2012, and to pass such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem F.I.R. and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;" 2. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that the issue is no more res integra in view of the following decisions in the case of: (I) Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. vs. Deputy Commr. of Cus. Import, 2020 (372) ELT 559 (A.P.) rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad (II) Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. And Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 2022 (379) ELT 318 (Ori.) rendered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (III) The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras vide judgement dated 05.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition No. 19298 of 2012 and allied matters. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah has further pointed out the interim order dated 13.12.2012 pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undertaking that they would file Bill of Entry as per Notification No. 12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 and pay applicable Customs duty, in terms of the Impugned Notification. He has submitted that the petitioner addressed the letter dated 08.06.2012 to respondent No. 4 and stated that bill of entry was not required to be filed in the present case as the vessels were old vessels and had already been imported in India in the past and plied in Indian waters earlier and it was also mentioned in the letter that they were last converted to coastal run in the port of Sikka on 21.02.2012 and were reverted to foreign going vessel status on 30.04.2012. 5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah has further submitted that Sections 29 to 43 of the Act deal with the provisions relating to conveyance carrying imported or exported goods and Sections 45 to 49 of the Act deal with imported goods, and Section 2(22) of the Act covers the goods which includes the vessels. He has submitted that the Person-in-Charge of a Vessel entering India from any place outside India shall have to follow the provisions as mentioned under Section 29 of the Act. It is submitted that while leaving the port, the person-in-char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 462 of the impugned notification read with condition No. 82 thereto, on the clearance of Jag Aabha. It is submitted that duty is sought to be levied on the event of conversion subsequent to the import and in terms of the Act, duty is leviable on the importation of goods, which happened in 2009 and thus, not liable to duty now in June, 2012. Further it is submitted that Sr. No. 462 would be applicable for those vessels which have entered India first time after 17.03.2012 and not event of imports prior to that date. He has submitted that it is undisputed fact that vessel was imported earlier in India and, therefore, Sr. No. 462 of the impugned notification would not be applicable in the present case. Thus, it is urged that the writ petition may be allowed in terms of prayer 25A. 8. At this stage, upon instructions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shah has submitted that the petitioner would not be pressing for prayer 25AA. 9. Opposing the present writ petition, and submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Gupta has submitted that the legal precedent as cited by the petitioner of various High Courts will not come to the aid of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... voyage, vessels returned to India and entered India's territorial waters and was sought to be converted for a coastal run status, for operation in India. It appears that at that point of time, the respondent authorities refused to permit the clearance of the vessels without the petitioner filing an undertaking that they would file bill of entry as per the Notification dated 17.03.2012 and pay applicable CVD. The petitioner objected to the same by saying that the vessels were old, which had already been imported to India in the past i.e. in the year 2009 and also plied in Indian waters earlier. It is also submitted that the vessels Jag Aabha and Jag Prerna were last converted to coastal run in the port on 20.07.2009 and 12.02.2012 prior to the issuance of the Notification dated 17.03.2012 and reverted to foreign-going vessel status on 30.04.2012. These facts are not denied by the respondents. Thus, the issue boils down to the applicability of the impugned Notification, as interpreted by the respondents with retrospective effect or not. 13. At this stage, we may incorporate the relevant part of the notification dated 17.03.2012. The same reads as under: "G.S.R. (E).- In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court proposed to legally by examining that circular in some due date. The subject matter of the said circular issued by the CBEC "procedure followed for import of Indian vessels and filing of import general manifest, bill of entry-regarding". 22. The circular explains in detailed that the context in which it is being issued since the difficulties was brought to the notice of the CBEC by the INSA stating that the customs field formations are insisting on filing of Import General Manifest (IGM) and BOE "even in respect of those vessels that were imported in the past and which were exempt from payment of import duty. The circular then proceeds to examine the various categories of vessels imported into India. These includes: "(i) Foreign flag vessels, i.e. vessels that have been registered outside India and which carry imported/exported goods or passengers, during its foreign run (voyage from a port outside India to an Indian port, whether touching any Intermediate port in India or not; (ii) Vessel entering India for the first time on arrival in the country, for registration as Indian Flag vessel, (iii) Vessels which are intended for conversion fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 17-3-2012, that is the date from which levy of CVD has come into force. 5. It is also clarified that all vessels including foreign going vessels for its entry into/exit from the country during its journey as foreign going vessel and the Indian flag vessel/Indian Ship for subsequent use as foreign going vessel would not require filing of IGM and Bill of Entry as conveyance, since the same are not imported goods to be cleared for home consumption. 6. Accordingly, the field formations may adjudicate the cases involving any violation where the IGM or Bill of Entry in respect of vessels were not filed at the time of import, on its first arrival in India or on its conversion into coastal trade and appropriate penal action be taken against the offenders." 25. A careful reading of the above circular reveals that it does not support the contention of Opposite Parties that in the present case where the vessel 'Jag Arnav' has been imported into India way back on 30th April, 2003, the Opposite Parties can insist on collection of CVD at the time of its conversion from a foreign going vessel into a coastal run vessel. 26. This contention also overlooks the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatus at Mundra on 1st February, 2013 and to coastal run status at Paradeep on 10th February, 2013. Provisional BOE was filed on 15th February, 2013 and provisional assessment took place. On 9th March, 2013 it reconverted to foreign status at Mundra. 32. Mr. Shah points out how Jag Arnav was in foreign status at the time of import and thereafter for nearly ten years. It converted to coastal run status for the first time at Dhamra on 6th January, 2013. It had called on Indian ports on various occasions in 2003, 2008 and 2009. 33. A similar list of dates have been filed for the two other vessels, i.e., 'Jag Ratan' and Jag Rani' both of which arrived at Indian port, i.e., Paradeep for the first time on 13th November, 2007 and 26th August, 2011 respectively. Both these vessels have been converted several times from coastal run status to foreign going status depending on the journeys undertaken. On 2nd March, 2013, 'Jag Ratan' reverted to foreign status at Dhamra and 'Jag Rani' on 7th January, 2013. 34. It requires to be noted at this stage that Petitioner No. 1 has filed writ petitions both in High Courts of Gujarat and Madras for similar reliefs. In the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Opposite Parties is that after the Notification dated 17th March 2012 was issued, customs duty is leviable on every occasion when the vessels in question entered India as a 'conveyance' carrying cargo. In relation to Indian flagged vessels, as the three in question in this case, at the time of their first entry into Indian waters they are considered as Imported 'goods'. Thereafter every time they re-renter these vessels conduct their activity as 'conveyance' as defined under Section 2(9) of the Act. Such conveyances are not re-imported into India every time they enter Indian waters since they were never 'exported from India. Section 20 of the Act would, therefore, have no applicability. Only their cargo would be amenable to customs duty, if at all. This position has been explained in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. MANU/SC/0105/2017: (2017) 3 SCC 211 as under: "13. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to understand certain concepts as envisaged under the Act. 'Goods' for the purpose of the Act Includes vessels, aircrafts and vehicles as defined in sub-section (22) to Section 2, yet the distinction has to be recognized b....