2002 (1) TMI 643 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of vessel and silver due to smuggling.
2. Involvement of various individuals in the smuggling operation.
3. Imposition of penalties on crew members and individuals involved.
4. Dispute regarding ownership of the vessel 'Blue Bird'.
5. Appeal against penalties imposed on individuals.

Confiscation of Vessel and Silver:
The vessel 'Blue Bird' was intercepted, leading to the recovery of silver ingots valued at Rs. 4,03,29,611. Statements from the Tindel and other crew members confirmed the acquisition and transport of silver. Following a show cause notice, the vessel and silver were confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the crew members. The penalty on one individual, Syed Nawaz, was deferred as he was undergoing preventive detention in another case.

Involvement of Various Individuals:
Syed Nawaz, after being traced, implicated S. Sarvanaperumal in the smuggling operation. Sarvanaperumal denied ownership of the vessel and any involvement in smuggling. Menino D'Souza claimed to have sold the vessel to Syed Nawaz before the contraband importation. Another show cause notice was issued based on these statements, leading to penalties imposed on Sarvanaperumal, Syed Nawaz, and Menino D'Souza.

Dispute Over Ownership of Vessel:
The appellant argued that the vessel used for smuggling had been sold before the incident. Documents, including a sale deed and change in ownership application, supported this claim. The appellant and his wife were discharged in previous prosecution proceedings, emphasizing their lack of connection to the vessel during the smuggling incident.

Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner imposed penalties on Sarvanaperumal, Syed Nawaz, and Menino D'Souza. However, the appellate tribunal found that the appellant's antecedents and lack of evidence against him made him not liable for penalties. The judgment highlighted a previous ruling where the appellant was not found to be the owner of the vessel or present during the interception, leading to the dismissal of penalties against him.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant based on the lack of evidence linking him to the smuggling operation.