9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of vessels used for smuggling. 2. Imposition of personal penalties on the Masters of the vessels. Detailed Analysis of the Judgment: 1. Confiscation of Vessels: The appeals primarily concern the confiscation of various vessels under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, for being used as means of transport in the smuggling of goods. The Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay, ordered the confiscation of these vessels but allowed redemption on payment of fines. The Central Board of Excise and Customs confirmed these orders. The Tribunal examined whether the confiscation orders were justified given the established facts and circumstances of each case. In each appeal, the Tribunal scrutinized the evidence and the nature of the goods found, their concealment, and the possibility of the Masters having knowledge or connivance in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal noted that the burden of proof under Section 115(2) is on the owner or the Master to prove that the vessel was used without their knowledge or connivance and that they had taken all possible precautions against such use. The Tribunal found that in most cases, the goods were concealed in such a manner that even expert Customs officers needed multiple searches to find them. The Masters had conducted searches and made logbook entries, and there was no evidence implicating them in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal also noted that no rules had been framed prescribing the precautions required to be taken by the owners and Masters, as mentioned in Section 115(2). Given these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the Masters had taken reasonable precautions and had no knowledge or connivance in the smuggling activities. Therefore, the orders of confiscation of the vessels were set aside. 2. Imposition of Personal Penalties on the Masters: The Additional Collector imposed personal penalties on the Masters under Section 112 of the Customs Act for failing to declare the contraband goods found on their vessels, thereby violating Section 30 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal examined whether the imposition of these penalties was legally justified. Section 30 requires the person in charge of a conveyance carrying imported goods to deliver an import manifest within twenty-four hours after arrival at a customs station and make a declaration as to the truth of its contents. The Additional Collector and the Board found that the Masters failed to declare the seized goods, thus violating Section 30 and becoming liable for penalties under Section 112. However, the Tribunal referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in The Mogul Line Ltd. v. A.K. Dutt, which held that the declaration under Section 30 pertains to goods legitimately carried in the vessel and not to smuggled goods of which the Master has no knowledge. The Tribunal followed this judgment and concluded that the imposition of penalties on the Masters for violating Section 30 was not legal. Therefore, the personal penalties imposed on the Masters were set aside. Additional Observations: The Tribunal highlighted that the findings of the Additional Collector and the Board were not based on sufficient evidence to establish that the vessels were used as means of transport in smuggling. The mere presence of smuggled goods on the vessels did not justify the conclusion that the vessels were used for smuggling. The Tribunal emphasized the need for concrete evidence to support such findings. Conclusion: All the appeals were allowed. The orders of confiscation of the vessels and the personal penalties imposed on the Masters were set aside. The fines and penalties, if paid, were ordered to be refunded.
|
