9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling. Analysis: The judgment involves a petition where the Malabar Steamship Co. Ltd., represented by their liquidator, challenged the order of the Additional Collector of Customs directing the confiscation of S.S. Janusha under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The vessel was found with concealed packages of foreign origin goods during a search, leading to the seizure of items worth over Rs. 8,50,000. Statements of the ship's Master and crew members denied knowledge or ownership of the seized goods, prompting the action under Section 115(2) for confiscation of the vessel used in smuggling activities. The key issue revolved around the correct interpretation and application of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The provision allows for the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling unless the owner proves that the conveyance was used without their knowledge or connivance, and all necessary precautions were taken as specified in the rules. The judgment highlighted the requirement for the owner and Master to demonstrate that the goods were carried without their knowledge, which was established in this case. However, the dispute arose regarding the second part of the provision, which mandates the person in charge to take all specified precautions against misuse as per the rules. The court analyzed the statutory language of Section 115(2) and emphasized that the provision imposes an absolute liability on the person in charge to adhere to all precautions specified in the rules. In this case, since no rules were framed or notified specifying the necessary precautions, the court held that there could be no constructive liability for failure to fulfill duties properly. The judgment cited precedents and highlighted that without specified rules, there cannot be a breach leading to confiscation of the vessel. Therefore, the court concluded that in the absence of specified precautions, the vessel could not be confiscated, and the petitioners succeeded in quashing the impugned order. In conclusion, the court held that since neither the owners nor the Captain had actual knowledge of the contraband's concealment, and in the absence of specified precautions in the rules, there was no authority to confiscate the vessel. The petitioners succeeded, and the impugned order was quashed, with the respondents directed to pay the costs of the petition.
|
