1985 (3) TMI 292 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Non-declaration of currency.
2. Confiscation of currency under Sec. 111(d) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 13(1) of the FERA, 1973.
3. Imposition of penalties under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Liability of the Master, Chief Purser, Staff Captain, II Mate, and Bosun.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-declaration of currency:
The judgment highlights that currency amounting to $20,992 was not declared in the currency declaration form of the vessel upon arrival at the port. The currency was discovered based on intelligence and subsequently seized. Initially, the Chief Purser indicated the money was needed for various expenses at ports of call with 122 passengers. Later, a claim was made that the currency belonged to eight passengers who had left it with the Chief Purser due to the lack of individual lockers. However, the register regarding the receipt of such currency was found to be not maintained in the normal course of business, suggesting it was a late concoction. None of the passengers were examined to support the claim that their currency was with the Chief Purser.

2. Confiscation of currency under Sec. 111(d) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 13(1) of the FERA, 1973:
The judgment explains that under Sec. 13 of the FERA, 1973, bringing currency into India without declaration is prohibited. The explanation to this section deems that even if the currency is not removed from the ship, it is still considered as bringing it into India. Sec. 67 of the FERA, 1973 states that restrictions under Sec. 13 are deemed to be imposed under Sec. 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the confiscation of the currency under Sec. 111(d) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 is maintainable in law. The judgment differentiates this case from the Kerala High Court decision in "Sri Ramalinga Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. The Asst. Collector of Customs and another," where the import took place at Cochin and not at Bombay. Here, the vessel 'M.V. Illiria' was anchored within the Port limits of Cochin, and Sec. 13 of the FERA, 1973 applies to goods not taken out of the vessel.

3. Imposition of penalties under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The judgment discusses that under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, any person concerned in carrying, removing, or dealing with goods liable to confiscation under Sec. 111 is subject to penalties. The Chief Purser made the currency declaration on behalf of the Master, thus abetting the Master in the commissioning of an offense under Sec. 111. Consequently, both the Master and the Chief Purser are liable for action under Sec. 112(b). The Staff Captain, II Mate, and Bosun aided the Master and Chief Purser in taking the currency from Customs officers and distributing it to the supposed owners, thus making them liable for penalties under Sec. 112(b).

4. Liability of the Master, Chief Purser, Staff Captain, II Mate, and Bosun:
The judgment establishes that the Master of the vessel is responsible for the delivery of the manifest under Sec. 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. Due to the incorrect statement in the currency declaration, the Master is liable for action under Sec. 112. The Chief Purser, who made the declaration on behalf of the Master, is also liable under Sec. 112(b) for abetting the Master. The Staff Captain, II Mate, and Bosun, who assisted in removing and distributing the seized currency, are liable for penalties as they dealt with the currency knowing it was liable for confiscation. The judgment concludes that the penalties imposed on the Master, Chief Purser, Staff Captain, II Mate, and Bosun are not excessive considering their roles and the quantum of currency involved.

Conclusion:
The appeals are dismissed, upholding the confiscation of the currency and the penalties imposed on the Master, Chief Purser, Staff Captain, II Mate, and Bosun of the vessel.

← Previous Next →