Collector Of Customs vs Marathon Shipping Pvt. Ltd

The Court : The original paper books are not on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has no instruction whether the original paper books were at all filed.

Mr. Bose, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent hands up copies of the paper books to this Court. In the absence of the original, this duplicate set is treated as the original paper book and taken on record.

We have perused the terms of reference in the order dated 10th January, 1995. The questions are as follows:

i) Whether the tribunal can pass the order without considering the legal provisions provided in the Customs Act, 1962 for levy of import duty on imported ships stores for home consumption while on coastal run and refund of import duty by way of drawback in case of re-exportation of the same at the time of vessel's re-connection into foreign run?

ii) Whether the tribunal has erred in passing the order while has taken into consideration the provision of Section 86 (i) of Customs Act, 1962 only and declared the two public Notices Nos.214/85 dated the sixteenth day of July, one thousand nine hundred eighty five and 390/88 dated the first day of September, one thousand nine hundred eighty eight ultra vires to the Customs Act, 1962 while they should have taken into consideration the provision of Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Imported stores (Retention on Board) Regulation, 1963 passed by Board under Section 157 and Section 96(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not concern with the consumption of stores on board and/or refund of any excess duty on it. It simply stand to keep the imported stores on board the vessel which she is in India not for consumption. So Section 86(1) cannot bring into consideration for a final decision on such important matter only?

iii) Whether the tribunal has erred in passing the order to refund the duly paid an imported stores to be re-exported on conversion of the vessel into foreign run without observing drawback formalities since Section 88 of Customs Act, 1962 provides for the refund of duty by way of duty drawback in terms of Section 74 of the said Act. In order to comply with provisions of Section 74 the goods must be capable of being easily identifiable to the satisfaction of Assistant Collector which have been imported into India upon which any duty has been paid on importation are entered for export under section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the proper officer made an order permitting clearance under Section 51. Hence drawback procedure is more appropriate in case of export of duty paid stores upon reversion of the vessel to foreign trade because imported goods include stores also on which if customs duty is paid and subsequently re-exported out of India relief is granted under the Customs Act vide Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 by way of drawback?

iv) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the refund of duty paid on stores to be re-exported on vessel converted to foreign run would not be governed by the provisions of Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the "imported" stores (retention on Board) Regulations 1963 and whether refund granted by tribunal on stores on re-exportation without submitting S/Bill should be held as not sound in law?

It appears that a statement of case was drawn up by the tribunal on the above basis and sent to this Court.

On perusal of the said questions, it appears to us that they are routine legal issues which arise out of orders passed by the tribunal. No substantial question of law is involved. The tribunal has taken a possible view. More than 25 years have elapsed after the order of the tribunal.

In those circumstances, we are not willing to take notice of those routine ordinary questions of law raised in the terms of reference, answer them, set aside the order of the tribunal and direct the tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with our answers. That exercise is not warranted.

In those circumstances, we dismiss the reference application.