9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of vessel in a smuggling case. 2. Application of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Justification of redemption fine imposed. Confiscation of Vessel: The appellant claimed innocence regarding the smuggling of goods found on their vessel, arguing against the vessel's confiscation. The Adjudicating Commissioner found no liability for penalty on the appellant. However, the Commissioner concluded that the vessel was used for smuggling with the knowledge and consent of the master of the vessel. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, citing Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows confiscation of a conveyance used in smuggling unless the owner proves lack of knowledge. The Tribunal reasoned that even if the owner was unaware, confiscation is justified if the person-in-charge knew about the smuggling, affirming the Adjudicating Commissioner's decision. Application of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962: Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 states that a conveyance used in smuggling goods shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner proves lack of knowledge. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the owner was unaware of the smuggling, confiscation is warranted if the person-in-charge, in this case, the master of the vessel, had knowledge of the illicit activities. The provision justifies the confiscation of the vessel in smuggling cases, emphasizing the responsibility of the owner and the person-in-charge. Justification of Redemption Fine: The appellant argued that the redemption fine imposed was high. However, the Tribunal found the redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs reasonable considering the vessel's value at Rs. 70 lakhs and the smuggled foreign currency valued over Rs. 1.43 crore. The Tribunal deemed the redemption fine appropriate and declined any reduction, indicating that the imposed amount was justified given the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision on the redemption fine. ---
|
