Page 172 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

562 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

sioner of Customs (Import) by letter, dated 1-6-2018. While clarifying that there is
no duty implication as the applicable customs duty and additional customs duty
are ‘NIL’ at the first time of the import of the vessel, regularisation of the impor-
tation of the vessel was sought. Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 3-7-2018,
was issued by the 2nd respondent calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to
why non-inclusion of the vessel in the IGM and non-filing of the bill of entry
should not be considered as violations of Sections 30 and 46 of the Customs Act,
1962, and why penalty for violations should not be levied on the importer. The
show cause notice specifically noted that the import of the vessel into Indian wa-
ters is on 28-5-2012. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed an order-in-riginal,
dated 6-7-2018, stating that though the import of the vessel was on the said date,
there are violations of the above said provisions and consequently a penalty of
Rs. 25,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- are respectively leviable under Section
30 and under Section 117 for violation of Section 46 of the said Act. The petitioner
complied with the said order and made the deposit of the penalties on 9-7-2018.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a manual bill of entry, dated 10-7-2018, seeking pro-
cedural regularisation of the import of the vessel, as on 28-5-2012, at ‘Nil’ rate of
Customs duty. The said manual bill of entry made it clear that it was filed for the
purpose of regularisation of the import of the vessel on 28-5-2012. Since penalty
was levied and was paid as stated supra, the petitioner addressed a letter, dated
14-8-2018, for cancellation of the manual bill of entry aforesaid as importation is
regularised on payment of penalty. The petitioner also addressed a letter, dated
14-8-2018, simultaneously for a closure report. The petitioner also sent a letter,
dated 27-8-2018, to the 3rd respondent for issuance of closure letter and cancella-
tion of manual bill of entry. In response to the letters, dated 14-8-2018 and 27-8-
2018, the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import) issued the
letter, dated 19-9-2018, stating that the payment of penalties does not absolve the
importer from assessment of the imported goods under Section 17 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962, and that the request of the importers for cancellation of manual
bill of entry or for issuance of a closure report is not in consonance with the pro-
visions of the Customs Act, 1962, and further informing that the importers are to
fulfil their obligation under Section 17 of the said Act. The petitioner vide letter,
dated 20-11-2018, addressed to the 1st respondent, inter alia, stated as follows :
‘There is no requirement for the petitioner to fulfil any obligations under the said
Section of law. The proposal of the customs authority was wholly without juris-
diction and contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Since penalties have been
imposed and paid and as at the time of import of the vessel in May, 2012, the
applicable customs duty was ‘nil’ and no customs duty was leviable on import of
ships/vessels into India, the actions of the said authorities are wholly without
jurisdiction and without authority of law. By filing the manual bill of entry, on
10-7-2018, the petitioner only had sought procedural regularisation as on 28-5-
2012, at ‘nil’ rate of customs duty. If the customs authorities want to undertake
the assessment/reassessment in 2018 as suggested in the letter, dated 19-9-2018,
and not as on 28-5-2012, as requested in the manual bill of entry, the petitioner is
then withdrawing the manual bill of entry so filed.’ However, the 2nd respond-
ent is seeking to continue with the assessment/reassessment proceedings of the
vessel and has fixed the personal hearing on 21-12-2018, by intimating the same
by letter, dated 10-12-2018. The respondents have neither withdrawn their ac-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  172