Page 179 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING COMPANY LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMR. OF CUS. IMPORT 569

17. In the decision of the CESTAT in Samson Maritime Ltd. v. Commis-
sioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2016 (333) E.L.T. 148 (Tri. - Mumbai)], the
facts and ratio are as follows : A Tug was imported and brought into India (at
Chennai port) on a contract in November, 1997. No import duty was payable on
ships imported during that period. The Tug was purchased by the appellant
therein, on 18-3-1998. Thereafter, it was used for coastal runs in India. Port clear-
ances were being granted for coastal runs for over a period of 14 years. At the
time of initial import in 1997, customs duty on bunkers and consumables was
paid by filing bill of entry giving details thereof as mentioned in the IGM for du-
tiable items. Customs authorities did not insist on filing of bill of entry at that
time. Subsequently, by notification, dated 1-3-2001, complete exemption from
payment of customs duty was withdrawn and duty of 5% was introduced. The
Tug was seized on 20-12-2011, and provisional release was allowed on condition
of filing of bill of entry and submission of bond etc. A demand of duty of Rs.
92,46,015/- was confirmed. Penalties were also imposed. The aggrieved appel-
lant approached the CESTAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai. The appellate Tribu-
nal referred to the above precedent cited and also noted that in the appellant’s
own case at the time of seizure, the High Court of Bombay observed that ‘if the
duty was not payable on the date of import and customs authorities have permit-
ted use of vessels all these years as imported goods, in our opinion, the customs
authorities are not justified in abruptly seizing the vessel in question. ..Even in
the present case, in our opinion, the Revenue is not justified in demanding the
duty for provisional release of the vessel, when prima facie, it is not in dispute
that on the date of initial import of these ocean going vessels, there was total ex-
emption of payment of duty.’ Eventually, the CESTAT held that demanding duty
at this stage for mere technical omission that occurred 14 years ago is not sus-
tainable.
18. Though this decision is of the CESTAT, it is stated that it is being re-
lied upon as the facts are akin to the facts of the instant case. Nevertheless, it is
also contended that the order of the CESTAT is binding on the subordinate au-
thorities in view of the settled legal position. (See Union of India v. Kamlakshi Fi-
nance Corp. Ltd. [1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)]). Hence, it is canvassed that the re-
spondents, who are bound by the decision of the CESTAT and the judicial disci-
pline, are not entitled to assess the vessel imported in May, 2012, as per the law
prevalent and applicable in the year 2018 contrary to the decision of the CESTAT.
19. Learned Senior Standing Counsel first contended that the order of
the Bombay High Court is against a provisional order imposing conditions and
that there is no final adjudication. Insofar as the decision of the CESTAT in Sam-
son Maritime Limited (supra) he contended that the judgment does not discuss the
implication of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 nor did it explicitly rule out
the filing of bill of entry for regularisation of import as envisaged in Board’s Cir-
cular 16/2012, dated 13-6-2012, and that in terms of Section 15 of the Act, the
rates of duty and tariff valuation on the date of filing of bill of entry, that is, 10-7-
2018 are applicable.
20. We are not impressed with this submissions for the following rea-
sons and the contents of the provisions of law referred to supra : ‘Admittedly the
vessel is imported into the Indian waters on 28-5-2012 and the vessel was al-
lowed to run after giving necessary port clearances for such runs on numerous
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  179