9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Smuggling of gold, confiscation of vessel, liability of the owner, absence of appellant leading to dismissal of appeal.
Analysis: 1. Smuggling of Gold and Confiscation of Vessel: - In the case, a vessel was intercepted at sea in 1990, with officers discovering gold in the diesel tank, valued at Rs. 9,75,00,000. The gold, being smuggled and banned for import, was ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The vessel, along with its equipment valued at Rs. 2,00,000, was also held liable for confiscation. However, it was ordered to be redeemed upon payment of a fine of Rs. 40,000 to the owner. The penalty was not upheld on one of the individuals involved. 2. Liability of the Owner: - The appellant, the owner of the vessel, was held responsible for the smuggling attempt. The gold was concealed in the vessel's diesel tanks, not manifested, and being transported into the country illegally. Despite claiming that the vessel was under his son's control for normal business purposes, the owner failed to provide evidence to support his plea for setting aside the redemption fine. The appellant's attempt to evade liability under Section 115(2) by arguing that he was not penalized under Section 112 of the Customs Act for the smuggled gold or the vessel's use by his son was rejected. The adjudicator found no merit in setting aside the decision. 3. Dismissal of Appeal due to Absence of Appellant: - The appellant's absence during the proceedings led to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution and on merits. Despite the case pending since 1992, the appellant's failure to appear and present a defense resulted in the tribunal proceeding to decide the issue based on the material and arguments presented by the respondent's representative. The lack of participation by the appellant ultimately led to the unfavorable outcome of the appeal being dismissed.
|
