M/S. Virat Ship Breaking Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants requested for disposal of the appeal on merits. we do so after hearing the ld.jdr shri j.m. george.2. the appellants imported a ship. assessment was done on 27.10.95 to total duty of rs.2,41,65,356/-. on 27.12.95, the jurisdictional officers found that the importer had already started breaking the ship although the cut and broken pieces had not been cleared from the site.the ship was formally seized and released provisionally. on 2.1.96 the importers paid the duty along with interest of rs. 7,94,477. after issue of show cause notice and after hearing the importers, the commissioner passed the orders specifying a fine of rs. one lakh and imposing a penalty of rs. 50,000/-. hence, the appeal.3. during the proceedings, the importers have consistently maintained that the ship was situated in such a manner as to necessitate early lightening of weight. it was submitted that the action of the importer was not motivated. we find that confiscation under sec.111(j) of the customs act was correctly made. we also find that the ld. commissioner had taken into account all the aspects in imposing token fine and penalty. we do not find that the importers deserve more leniency and dismiss the appeal.

Judgment:
1. The appellants requested for disposal of the appeal on merits. We do so after hearing the ld.JDR Shri J.M. George.

2. The appellants imported a ship. Assessment was done on 27.10.95 to total duty of Rs.2,41,65,356/-. On 27.12.95, the jurisdictional officers found that the importer had already started breaking the ship although the cut and broken pieces had not been cleared from the site.

The ship was formally seized and released provisionally. On 2.1.96 the importers paid the duty along with interest of Rs. 7,94,477. After issue of show cause notice and after hearing the importers, the Commissioner passed the orders specifying a fine of Rs. One lakh and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. Hence, the appeal.

3. During the proceedings, the importers have consistently maintained that the ship was situated in such a manner as to necessitate early lightening of weight. It was submitted that the action of the importer was not motivated. We find that confiscation under Sec.111(j) of the Customs Act was correctly made. We also find that the ld. Commissioner had taken into account all the aspects in imposing token fine and penalty. We do not find that the importers deserve more leniency and dismiss the appeal.