9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Liability to confiscation of vessels
Analysis: The case involved two vessels arriving from Dubai with dutiable goods and old diesel engines, leading to confiscation and seizure under the Customs Act, 1962. The vessels were provisionally released upon bond and bank guarantee. Statements of the Tindels and crew members indicated personal use of goods purchased with extra earnings. Show cause notices proposed confiscation and penalties, which were upheld by the Addl. Commissioner of Customs. The Appellate Authority also confirmed the confiscation, leading to appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal analyzed Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which states that conveyances used in smuggling goods are liable to confiscation unless used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner, agent, or person in charge. The Tribunal found that the owners had no knowledge of the vessels being used for smuggling. The knowledge was attributed to the Tindels, but there was no evidence to establish their awareness of the contraband. The crew members did not indicate that the Tindels knew about the bulk purchase of goods. The goods were declared in lists, and there was no indication of declarations being an afterthought. Regarding the diesel engines, there was no evidence that the Tindels knew they were contraband, thus not rendering the vessels liable for confiscation. The lower Appellate Authority's reliance on crew members not signing off and goods not being individually packed was deemed insufficient to attribute knowledge to the Tindels. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that identical goods were not individually packed due to crew members' illiteracy. As the goods were declared and the explanations were plausible, the confiscation of the vessels was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and allowed the appeals.
|
