9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to the legality of the order confiscating a vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The judgment involves a challenge to the legality of an order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs confiscating a vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The vessel was found to be carrying smuggled goods, and the Customs authorities initiated proceedings for violation of relevant acts. The Master and owner of the vessel denied knowledge of the smuggled goods, arguing that they had taken precautions against such activities. The Additional Collector, despite finding no evidence of their knowledge, confiscated the goods and the vessel. The petitioners challenged the confiscation, arguing that the order cannot be sustained under Section 115(2) of the Act. The key contention raised by the petitioners was that the order of confiscation could not be justified under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. The provision allows for confiscation of conveyance used in smuggling unless the owner proves lack of knowledge or connivance. The petitioners argued that since there was no evidence of the owner or Master's knowledge, the confiscation was unjustified. The judgment highlighted the absence of specific rules regarding precautions to be taken, emphasizing that lack of knowledge is crucial for confiscation under the Act. The judgment critiqued the Additional Collector's order, noting conflicting statements within it. While the Collector acknowledged the lack of evidence regarding the Master or owner's knowledge, the order still confiscated the vessel. The judgment rejected the argument that the finding of lack of knowledge was limited to a penalty under a different section, asserting that it should apply to the confiscation as well. The judgment emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings, ensuring the benefit of doubt to the accused parties. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the argument that knowledge could be presumed in the Master of the ship, citing a legal precedent. However, it emphasized that the clear finding of lack of knowledge by the Additional Collector was decisive. The judgment dismissed attempts to question the findings, stating that the authority's determination should be respected. Ultimately, the judgment set aside the order of confiscation of the vessel under Section 115(2) of the Act, granting the relief sought by the petitioners while confirming the rest of the order.
|
