2004 (1) TMI 490 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the owners' agents of two vessels.
2. Legality of penalties imposed due to vessels landing at an undeclared place.
3. Argument regarding the correctness of filing a Nil manifest by the agents of one vessel.
4. Responsibility of agents for goods landing at unauthorized places.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of penalties under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the owners' agents of two vessels, M.T. Sigiri and Meng Kiat. The penalties were imposed by the Commissioner due to the vessels landing at an undeclared place, leading to the seizure of Meng Kiat by Customs officers.

2. The appellants argued that the agents of M.T. Sigiri filed a Nil manifest as they did not have any cargo on board when entering the port, which was factually correct. They contended that abandoning Meng Kiat due to engine trouble did not constitute smuggling. The appellants further argued that penalties under Section 112(b) could only be imposed if the activities listed in the section were knowingly engaged in, which was not the case here.

3. Regarding the penalty on the agents of Meng Kiat, it was argued that the vessel was in tow and not under its own power when it drifted and landed at an unauthorized place. The appellants asserted that only goods landed at unauthorized places are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, and the agents who came into the picture after the vessel was seized should not be held responsible.

4. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order untenable, stating that neither the agents of Sigiri nor Meng Kiat had committed any offense punishable under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeals of the appellants, ruling in their favor.