2015 (11) TMI 941 - AT - Customs

Smuggled of goods into India - Proceedings were initiated against the Masters of the vessels and several others including the crew members of the vessels and the boatmen. - Confiscation - Imposition of redemption fine - Imposition of penalty - Held that - vessel MV Salvanguard sailed from Singapore on 17-1-2009 and arrived at Kakinada Port on 23-1-2009 and on the same day, the vessel was got converted from Foreign run to Coastal run. Thereafter, the officers found a fibre boat carrying the packages received from vessel MV Salvanguard and being carried to vessel MV Salvigilant. The boat was found in Indian territory. Therefore, it can be definitely said that once vessel reached India and was converted into Coastal run, the importation of foreign spares was complete. The Master of the vessel failed to declare these items in the manifest filed by them. This has been admitted. The reason given is ignorance of law. Even if a Master of the vessel is in his first voyage, he would have known all the relevant provisions of law. - The Master of the vessel who received the engine/ship spares has also admitted that he unloaded the said items from the vessel into fibre boat and allowed them to deliver to another vessel, without intimating the Customs authority. The boatman did not take the minimum precaution of checking up whether Customs formalities have been fulfilled before undertaking the transfer of the goods. The above discussion would show that there was all round failure to follow the procedures under Customs Act, 1962, in this case. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Violation of Customs Act, 1962 regarding importation of foreign spares, failure to declare items in manifest, ignorance of law as an excuse, non-inclusion of items in manifest, transferring items without Customs authority notification, failure to follow Customs procedures.

Detailed Analysis:

Violation of Customs Act, 1962: The case involved the importation of foreign spares on a vessel which sailed from Singapore and arrived in India. The spares were not declared in the manifest as required by law. The Customs officers seized the spares during a transfer operation from one vessel to another within Indian territory. The actions of the parties involved were found to be in violation of various sections of the Customs Act, 1962.

Failure to Declare Items in Manifest: The Master of the vessel admitted to not declaring the engine/ship spares in the manifest filed by them. This failure to declare the items was a crucial violation of the law, irrespective of the Master's claimed ignorance. The duty to declare such items is a fundamental requirement under the Customs Act, and ignorance of the law was not accepted as a valid excuse.

Ignorance of Law as an Excuse: The appellants argued that the Master of the vessel was not aware of the provisions of the Customs Act and related rules, leading to the omission of informing the Customs authority about the spares. However, the Tribunal held that ignorance of the law cannot serve as a legitimate excuse, especially for a Master of a vessel who is expected to be knowledgeable about the legal procedures at various ports.

Transferring Items Without Customs Authority Notification: The transfer of the spares from one vessel to another without intimating the Customs authority was a significant violation of the Customs procedures. The failure to follow the proper protocol for transferring goods between vessels in Indian territory led to the confiscation of the spares and penalties imposed on the parties involved.

Conclusion: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by the learned A.R. and examining the evidence, concluded that there were clear violations of the Customs Act, 1962 in this case. The failure to declare the imported spares, transfer them without proper authorization, and ignorance of the law were not considered valid reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, all the appeals were rejected, and the impugned order was upheld by the Tribunal.