Remanded

Commissioner of Customs, v. M/S Universal Dredgers Ltd.

Kerala HC11 Nov 2022Cus.Appeal/11/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's findings on jurisdiction regarding customs duty levied on a dredger. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for afresh consideration on specific issues concerning import location, jurisdiction, limitation, and joint liability.

What did the court decide?

FBU remitted to CESTAT for final adjudication on jurisdiction, limitation, joint liability, and valuation.

Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/S Universal Dredgers Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶7

CUS.APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER APPEAL NO 21593/2014 OF CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX

¶9

APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

¶12

C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018.

¶13

BY ADV P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

M/S UNIVERSAL DREDGERS LTD.,

¶16

NILHAT HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, COCHIN-682 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶17

BY ADVS. T.VISWANATHAN; PRABHAKARAN P.M. KARTHIK S. NAIR;

¶18

THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.12/2021, 13/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

-2-

¶20

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶24

¶25

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶26

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶27

CUS.APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2021

¶28

AGAINST THE ORDER APPEAL NO 21591/2014 OF CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX

¶29

APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE

¶30

APPELLANT/S:

¶31

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,

¶32

CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 009.

¶33

BY ADV P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶34

RESPONDENT/S:

¶35

M/S.SAMUDRA DREDGERS (UK) LTD.,

¶36

NILHAT HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, COCHIN - 682 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶37

BY ADVS. T.VISWANATHAN PRABHAKARAN P.M.; KARTHIK S. NAIR

¶38

THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

-3-

¶40

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI

¶44

¶45

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶46

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶47

CUS.APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2021

¶48

AGAINST THE ORDER APPEAL NO 21594/2014 OF CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX

¶49

APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE

¶50

APPELLANT/S:

¶51

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

¶52

C.R. BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 018.

¶53

BY ADV P.G.JAYASHANKAR

¶54

RESPONDENT/S:

¶55

1 M/S. MANTHAN DREDGING LTD 1801, DINA HOUSE, RUTTONJEE CENTRE II DUDDELL STREET, CENTRAL HONGKONG REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶56

2 M/S. MANTHAN DREDGING LTD., C/O. PAREKH MARINE AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NILHAT HOUSE, BRISTOW ROAD, COCHIN 682 003, REP. BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR.

¶57

BY ADVS. T.VISWANATHAN; PRABHAKARAN P.M.; KARTHIK S. NAIR;

¶58

THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2022, ALONG WITH Cus.Appeal.11/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶59

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021 -4-

¶60

J U D G M E N T

¶61

[Cus.Appeal Nos.11/2021, 12/2021, 13/2021]

¶62

S.V. Bhatti, J.

¶63

We have heard Mr P G Jayashankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr T Viswanathan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶64

The Commissioner of Customs/Revenue is the

¶65

appellant. (i) M/s. Universal Dredgers Ltd, (ii) M/s. Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd, and (iii) M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd are the respondents in the appeals. The appeals arise from the common order dated 17.08.2020. The details of the appeals, from which the second appeals are filed in this Court, are stated

¶66

thus:

¶67

Show cause notice	Show cause notice	Order in Original	Order of the CESTAT	Party	Customs Appeal
F.No.SIIB/23/ 2012-Cus	No.SIIB/23/20 12(pt)-Cus	COC- CUSTM-000-	Customs Appeal No.21593/2014	M/s.Universal Dredgers Ltd	11/2021
dt.30.01.2013	dt.07.05.2013	COM-072- 12-13 dt 25.02.2014	Customs Appeal No.21591/2014	M/s.Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd	12/2021
			Customs Appeal No.21594/2014	M/s.Manthan DredgingLtd	12/2021

¶68

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶69

-5-

¶70

The appellant issued show cause notice under Section

¶71

124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the

¶72

Act’) to the respondents herein. The show cause notice dated 30.01.2013 refers to the import of Dredger registered as ‘MV Darya Manthan’ (for short ‘Dredger’) into Indian waters without discharging the duty obligation attracted to the import of subject Dredger. A few dates relevant for appreciating the circumstances stated in the show cause notice are that M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd, registered in Hong Kong, is the owner of the Dredger; for the period 25.12.2007 to 16.10.2012 onwards, the disponent owners of the Dredger were stated as M/s. Chellchart (UK) Ltd, UK, Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd, UK, and Universal Dredgers Ltd., UK. On 26.11.2007, the Dredger was on a Time-Charter arrangement with Chellchart (UK) Ltd and was bearing a foreign flag. On 14.12.2007, registered a Bill of Entry

¶73

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶74

-6-

¶75

for home consumption of consumables on board of the Dredger alone. On 20.12.2007, the Dredger was converted from Foreign Run to Coastal Run.

¶76

3.1 Between 10.10.2009 and 13.11.2009, the Dredger was dry-docked in Singapore. On 20.11.2009, the Dredger sailed back to Paradeep Port and alleges to have obtained a certificate as Coastal Run Dredger. On 18.11.2009, the Dredger, upon reporting at Paradeep Port, filed Bill of Entry for home consumption. Again on 01.08.2010, the Dredger claimed to have converted its status from Coastal Run to Foreign Run. The Dredger sailed back to Singapore and was docked till 04.05.2011. The Dredger again entered Indian waters at Nagapattinam on 12.05.2011 and remained at Nagapattinam till 08.06.2011. The Dredger filed Bill of Entry for consumables at on the board of Dredger. On 11.06.2011, the Dredger sailed from Nagapattinam Port to Paradeep Port. The Dredger, on 12.06.2011, obtained a

¶77

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶78

-7-

¶79

Conversion Certificate from Foreign Run Dredger to Coastal Run Dredger while stationed at Paradeep Port.

¶80

3.2 The Dredger, it is alleged, filed IGM of consumables on board in the latest instance while reporting at Paradeep Port. The boarding procedure of the Dredger, on 15.06.2011, was completed by the Officer of Customs at Dhamra Port. Thereafter, on 28.01.2012, the Dredger was given on a TimeCharter basis to Samudra Dredgers (UK) Ltd, respondent no.1 in Customs Appeal No.12/2021. On 24.08.2012, the Commissioner of Customs issued a Restraint Order on the Dredger. The Disponent Owner, by furnishing Bank Guarantee and Security Bond on 30.08.2012, secured the release of the Dredger. The Dredger was again on a Time-Charter to Universal Dredgers Ltd with effect from 20.10.2012. In the above chronological dates and events, the Commissioner, by referring to entry into Cochin

¶81

Port area and not paying the customs duty, has issued the show-

¶82

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶83

-8-

¶84

cause notice dated 30.01.2013. The duty is leviable on a Dredger in terms of Notification No.19/2012.

¶85

The respondents filed reply explaining that the Dredger, as and when reporting at a Port, has been filing IGM. The Dredger has been treated as a Foreign-going vessel, and whenever the need has arisen for Coastal-Run standing of the Dredger, the same has been accorded by the Officers of the Customs Department. The show-cause notice refers to alleged entry to Indian territorial waters through various ports, but

¶86

duty demand is made by the Commissioner, Cochin.

¶87

On 28.01.2012 and a few dates in 2011, the showcause notice accuses Dredger of entering Indian waters as amounting to import and not paying the customs duty payable. The reply of the owner and the disponent owner of the Dredger contest vehemently each one of the circumstances set out in the

¶88

show-cause notice dated 30.01.2013. The reply is not adverted

¶89

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶90

-9-

¶91

to in this judgment for more than one valid reason and also for

¶92

the order we are proposing to make while disposing of the appeals.

¶93

The Revenue confirmed the show-cause notice, and the concluding portion reads as follows:

¶94

“(i). I confirm the duty of Rs.3,28,42,609/- (Rupees three crore twenty eight lakh forty two thousand six hundred and nine only), demanded vide show cause notice SIIB/23/2012-Cus dated 30.01.2013, on the lease value of the dredger, together with interest thereon, jointly on the owner of the dredger 'Darya Manthan', M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd, 1801, Dina House, Ruttonjee Centre, 11 Duddll Street, Central, Hong Kong, and the disponent owners M/s.Samudra Dredgers (UK) Limited, Bridge House, 4 Borough High street, London, SE1 9QR, UK and M/s. Universal Dredgers Ltd, London, UK, under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and quantified under Section 28 (8) read with Section 28 (10) ibid;

¶95

(ii) I impose a penalty of Rs.3,28,42,609/- (Rupees three crore twenty eight lakh forty two thousand six hundred and nine only) jointly on the owner of the dredger 'Darya Manthan' M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd, Dina House, Ruttonjee Centre, 11 Duddll

¶96

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶97

-10-

¶98

Street, Central, Hong Kong, and the disponent owners M/s.Samudra Dredgers (UK) Limited, Bridge

¶99

(iii) I confirm the duty of Rs.46,73,440/- (Forty Six Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred And Forty Only), demanded vide show cause notice SIIB/23/2012-(pt)Cus dated 07.05.2013, on the lease value of the dredger, together with interest thereon, jointly on the owner of the dredger 'Darya Manthan', M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd, 1801, Dina House, Ruttonjee Centre, 11 Duddll Street, Central, Hong Kong, and the disponent owners M/s.Samudra Dredgers (UK) Limited, Bridge House, 4 Borough High street, London, SE1 9QR, UK and M/s. Universal Dredgers Ltd, London, UK under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 and quantified under Section 28 (8) read with Section 28 (10) ibid;

¶100

(iv) I impose a penalty of Rs.46,73,440/- (Forty Six Lakh Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred And Forty Only) jointly on the owner of the dredger 'Darya Manthan' M/s. Manthan Dredging Ltd, Dina House, Ruttonjee Centre, 11 Duddll Street, Central, Hong Kong, and the disponent owners M/s.Samudra Dredgers (UK) Limited, Bridge House, 4 Borough High street, London, SE1 9QR, UK and M/s. Universal Dredgers Ltd, London, UK under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962;

¶101

(v) The cash deposits/bank guarantees shall stand appropriated against the above dues.”

¶102

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶103

-11-

¶104

The owners and the disponent owners filed

¶105

C/21591/2014; C/21593/2014; and C/21594/2014 before the

¶106

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The respondents have raised several contentions touching on the jurisdiction, competence, rate, quantification, and fixing the liability on the Dredgers simultaneously. The Tribunal framed the following issues, and the answers on the respective points are stated (against each one of the issues):

¶107

“(1) Whether the impugned vessel MV Darya Manthan is foreign going vessel in terms of Section 2(21) of Customs Act, 1962; (No)

¶108

(ii) Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No.94/96; (No)

¶109

(iii) Whether Commissioner of Customs, Cochin has jurisdiction over the import which initially occurred at the port of Paradeep on 11.6.2011; (No)

¶110

(iv) Whether the vessel MV Darya Manthan is liable to pay duty

¶111

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶112

-12-

¶113

on being used for coastal run at Cochin for the period 28.1.2012 to 28.2.2013; (No)

¶114

(v) Whether the Commissioner of Customs was right in holding that separate proceedings for demand of duty and seizure of the vessel MV Darya Manthan can be initiated; and (No)

¶115

(vi) Whether Commissioner of Customs was correct in confirming the duty liability jointly on different parties. (No)”

¶116

The Tribunal, through the impugned common order, allowed

¶117

the appeals filed by the respondents herein. Hence, the instant appeals.

¶118

Mr P G Jayashankar challenges the findings, or the

¶119

view taken by the Tribunal, on issue no. (iii) and argued with considerable force that the framing of an erroneous issue conclusions thereon recorded by the Tribunal on the said issue cover jurisdictional facts. The duty demanded under Section 28

¶120

is more in the nature of an action in rem . The issuance of show-

¶121

cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, is

¶122

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶123

-13-

¶124

maintainable, and the Tribunal formulated an issue in a preposterous way, namely by noting that the import initially occurred at the Port of Paradeep on 11.06.2011. The question assumes and accepts that the Port of Paradeep is the place of import. The Tribunal has not taken note of the contemporaneous circumstances, such as applying for the status of Coastal-Run vessel, timing of application, and whether the continued operation without discharging the duty liability fastens jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin or not.

¶125

8.1 It is pointed out that the issue itself is pre-judging the consideration and above all, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are without reference to the applicable provisions of law in the Act or to the circumstances admitted by the parties to the case. Even on undisputed circumstances, erroneous findings are recorded by the Tribunal. As the Tribunal is a final

¶126

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶127

-14-

¶128

Court of finding of fact, it could have been, in the fitness of circumstances, that the Tribunal recorded findings on relevant issues arising in the matter. The respondents since have not filed an appeal on the issues answered in favour of the Revenue; the issue dealing with jurisdiction needs to be reconsidered along with other incidental issues arising in the matter. He argues for setting aside the common order and remit the matter for the limited purpose of reconsidering the jurisdictional and connected issues by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel placed before the Court a few draft points which, according to him, are germane to the case on hand for a decision.

¶129

Mr T Viswanathan argued by inviting the attention of the Court to various annexures filed before this Court, and firstly, issue no.(iii) excerpted above though assumes a particular state of affairs, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal is commensurate and available in the circumstances of

¶130

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021 -15-

¶131

the case. He relied on several judgments in support of his argument on jurisdictional issues, Port of entry, and the competence of the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, to initiate duty recovery proceedings. It cannot be gainsaid that the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal can be sustained through supplemental reasoning now given by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. The findings as recorded by the Tribunal are read out for our consideration and argued that the formulation of issues, whether correct or not or the Tribunal committed an error, are left to the discretion and jurisdiction of this Court. For a valid reason, the framing of issue no. (iii) and a finding recorded thereon do not convince the Court, it is argued that the matter could be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh, and in such an event, a few issues, on which neither there is consideration nor findings recorded by the Tribunal, are also directed to be considered on remand by

¶132

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶133

-16-

¶134

the Tribunal. The Counsel has submitted a few draft issues for consideration and comprehensive adjudication by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶135

We have taken note of the draft suggestions made by both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and we set aside the findings of the Tribunal on issue no. (iii) and remit the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh on the following issues.

¶136

(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where and when the import of the Dredger has occasioned?

¶137

(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on the assumption that on 24.08.2012, the Dredger was within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, has jurisdiction to demand duty under Section 28 of the Act?

¶138

(iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶139

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021 -17-

¶140

application of an extended period of limitation is available and justifiable or not?

¶141

(iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the confirmation of duty liability on different parties is valid and legal?

¶142

(v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of the duty liability is attracted on the import of Dredger, subject to a finding on the above issues, the further issue for consideration is what is the value and duty payable on the imported Dredger and by whom?

¶143

The findings recorded on other issues are not disturbed, and these issues are re-examined by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible after affording an opportunity to both parties. Questions are answered, for statistical purposes, in favour of the Revenue, and appeals are remitted to the Tribunal

¶144

for consideration afresh, as indicated above. We make it clear

¶145

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶146

-18-

¶147

that findings recorded on issue no.3 are set aside, and other findings are not disturbed. At the same time, as a few other issues would arise for consideration on the suggestion made by the counsel appearing for the parties, additional issues, as indicated above, are framed for the decision of the Tribunal.

¶148

Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Sd/-

¶149

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

¶150

jjj

¶151

-19-

¶152

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶153

APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 12/2021

¶154

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶155

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/01/2013 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07/05/2013 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶156

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 25/02/2014.

¶157

Annexure A4 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/08/2020 IN APPEAL NO.21591 OF 2014 OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

¶158

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶159

Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. C/21591/2014.

¶160

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶161

-20-

¶162

APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 13/2021

¶163

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶164

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE DATED 30.01.2013 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶165

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07.05.2013 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶166

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 23.02.2014 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶167

Annexure A4 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.08.2020 IN APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 2014 OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE, TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

¶168

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶169

Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF CHART SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF THE DREDGER IN QUESTION SINCE THE INCEPTION.

¶170

Annexure R1(b) TRUE C0PY OF BILL OF ENTRY DATED 27.12.2007.

¶171

Annexure R1(c) TRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY DATED 18.11.2009.

¶172

Annexure R1(d) TRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY DATED 28.06.2011.

¶173

Annexure R1(e) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 10.06.2011 MADE BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PARADIP REQUESTING FOR CONVERSION OF THE VESSEL 'M.V.DARYA MANTHAN', FROM FOREIGN RUN TO COASTAL RUN AT PARADIP PORT.

¶174

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶175

-21-

¶176

Annexure R1(f)	TRUE COPY OF COASTAL PERMISSION DATED 08.06.2011 GRANTED TO M.V DARYA MANTHAN BY THE DG SHIPPING FOR UNDERTAKING DREDGING OPERATIONS IN DHARMA PORT ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
Annexure R1(g)	TRUE COPY OF CONVERSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PARADIP CUSTOMS.
Annexure R1(h)	TRUE COPY OF VESSEL STORE LIST DATED 14.12.2007.
Annexure R1(I)	TRUE COPY OF BUNKER SURVEY CALCULATION SHEET DATED 20.11.2009.
Annexure R1(j)	TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 12.06.2011.
Annexure R1(K)	TRUE COPY OF EXPORT GENERAL MANIFEST DATED 12.10.2009.
Annexure R1(l)	TRUE COPY OF EXPORT GENERAL MANIFEST DATED 14.04.2010.
Annexure R1(m)	TRUE COPY OF PORT CLEARANCE DATED 01.04.2011.
Annexure R1(n)	A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS.
Annexure R1(o)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.01.2013.
Annexure R1(P)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 07.05.2013.
Annexure R1(q)	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED PURSUANT TO PERSONAL HEARING.
Annexure R1(r)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. C/21594/2014.
Annexure R1(S)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON SYNOPSIS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.

¶177

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶178

-22-

¶179

Annexure R1(t) TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMON SYNOPSIS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. Annexure R1(u) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 149 DATED 22.05.2018.

¶180

Customs Appeal Nos.11, 12 & 13/2021

¶181

-23-

¶182

APPENDIX OF CUS.APPEAL 11/2021

¶183

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶184

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.1.2013 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶185

Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 7.5.2013 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶186

Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 25.2.2014.

¶187

Annexure A4 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.8.2020 IN APPEAL NO.21593 OF 2014 OF THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.

Commissioner of Customs, v. M/S Universal Dredgers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs, v. M/S Universal Dredgers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs Vs Cii Guardian International Ltd.

M/S. Surabhi Enterprises Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Surabhi Enterprises Vs State of Kerala

G.Sarun Vs State of Kerala

Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/S.Samudra Dredgers (Uk) Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs Vs M/S. Manthan Dredging Ltd.