1986 (2) TMI 67 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act in relation to the confiscation of goods and conveyances.
2. Allegations of violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India.
3. Ownership and usage of the Ambassador car TMG 7137 in the smuggling of goods.
4. Confiscation and redemption fine imposed on the vehicle under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act.

Issue 1: Validity of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act

The petitioner challenged the validity of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, arguing that it imposes an unreasonable restriction and burden. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 115(2), emphasizing that liability for confiscation of conveyances is subject to proof of knowledge or connivance. The court held that the section aims to prevent smuggling activities and preserve foreign exchange reserves, dismissing the petitioner's contention of violation of constitutional articles.

Issue 2: Allegations of Constitutional Violations

The petitioner alleged violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution of India. The court examined the contentions and ruled that the provisions of Section 115(2) do not contravene the constitutional rights cited by the petitioner. The court emphasized that liability under the Act is contingent upon proof of knowledge or connivance, ensuring fairness in the application of the law.

Issue 3: Ownership and Usage of Ambassador Car TMG 7137

The court reviewed the ownership and usage details of the Ambassador car TMG 7137 in the smuggling of goods. Despite the owner's claims of lack of knowledge regarding the smuggling activities, the court found that the car had been used for transporting contraband goods. The owner was given an option to redeem the car upon payment of a fine, highlighting the importance of proving lack of knowledge or connivance to avoid liability under the Customs Act.

Issue 4: Confiscation and Redemption Fine

The court addressed the petitioner's argument regarding the redemption fine being linked to the market price of the goods, potentially leading to disproportionate penalties. The court clarified that the redemption fine serves as a deterrent measure and is contingent upon proof of knowledge or connivance. The court emphasized that the validity of Section 115(2) is not undermined by individual adjudication outcomes, dismissing the writ petition challenging the confiscation and redemption provisions under the Customs Act.

This judgment upholds the validity of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and emphasizes the importance of proving lack of knowledge or connivance to avoid liability for the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling activities. The court's analysis underscores the preventive nature of the law to combat smuggling operations and preserve foreign exchange reserves, ensuring fairness in adjudication processes related to confiscation and redemption fines imposed under the Customs Act.