1968 (4) TMI 77 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of prohibited goods under Sections 111(d) & (f) of the Customs Act.
2. Liability of the Master of the vessel under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
3. Interpretation of Sections 30, 111, and 112 of the Customs Act.
4. Applicability of mens rea (guilty mind) in statutory offenses under the Customs Act.
5. Validity of non-prescription of regulations under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Confiscation of Prohibited Goods under Sections 111(d) & (f) of the Customs Act:
The judgment discusses the confiscation of prohibited goods such as transistor radios, wrist watches, and other consumer goods found on the vessel "M.V. Wairimu." These goods were recovered from various hidden locations on the ship, including the engine room and hatch No. 5, packed in gunny bags, and other concealed spaces. Notices were issued to the petitioners to show cause why these goods should not be confiscated under Sections 111(d) & (f) of the Customs Act.

Liability of the Master of the Vessel under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act:
The Master of the vessel was held liable under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act for not declaring the prohibited goods in the import manifest. The judgment states, "The Master cannot be absolved of his liability in the present case merely on the ground that he was ignorant about the existence of these goods on board the vessel." The court imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the Master for failing to exercise due diligence in ensuring that all goods on board were declared in the manifest.

Interpretation of Sections 30, 111, and 112 of the Customs Act:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 30, 111, and 112 of the Customs Act. Section 30 mandates that the person-in-charge of a conveyance carrying imported goods must deliver an import manifest within twenty-four hours of arrival. The court noted that the seized goods did not figure in the import manifest delivered by the Master. The judgment emphasized that the failure to include imported goods in the manifest renders them liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and the person responsible to a penalty under Section 112.

Applicability of Mens Rea in Statutory Offenses under the Customs Act:
The court discussed the relevance of mens rea in statutory offenses, referencing the Supreme Court case of Indo China Steam Navigation Co. v. Jasjit Singh. The judgment concluded that mens rea is not an essential element in interpreting Sections 30, 111, and 112 of the Customs Act. The court noted that "the responsibility to submit a correct return or to suffer the consequences of an incorrect return may be a strict liability of the Master of the vessel."

Validity of Non-Prescription of Regulations under Section 111(f) of the Customs Act:
The petitioners argued that the absence of prescribed regulations under Section 111(f) made the clause unworkable. However, the court rejected this argument, citing Section 160(3) of the Customs Act, which allows for the continuation of regulations under the old Sea Customs Act until new regulations are prescribed. The court concluded that Section 111(f) is not unworkable due to the non-prescription of new regulations.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the imposition of the personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the Master of the vessel, stating that the respondent should have allowed the Master to amend the manifest under Section 30(3) since there was no fraudulent intention. The rest of the order, including the confiscation of the prohibited goods, was upheld. The judgment emphasizes the strict liability of the Master in submitting a correct import manifest and the importance of safeguarding the economy from clandestine importation of prohibited goods.