1998 (4) TMI 135 - SC - Customs

Interpretation of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 Held that - Section 115(1)(e) contains the expression any conveyance carrying imported goods . These words refer to the goods which are being imported by the vessel in the country, i.e., the imported goods which are contained in the vessel. In providing for confiscation of the vessel in Section 115(1)(e) it could not have been the intention of Parliament to penalise the owner of the vessel in a case where a portion, even though substantial, of a particular consignment of goods is found to be missing although the said consignment is only an insignificant part both in the matter of quantity as well as value of the goods that have been imported in the vessel. Applying the aforesaid test, 45,000 cigarettes that were found missing cannot be held to be a substantial portion of the goods that were imported either in the matter of quantity or in the matter of value of the goods that were imported in the vessel. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding confiscation of conveyances carrying imported goods with missing substantial portion.

Analysis:

1. Facts and Background:
The case involved a sea-going vessel carrying imported goods, specifically focusing on the missing 45,000 cigarettes from the vessel's Bond-Room. The Customs authorities alleged that the missing cigarettes rendered the vessel liable for confiscation under Section 115(1)(e) of the Customs Act.

2. Initial Proceedings:
The Additional Collector of Customs held that the missing cigarettes constituted a substantial portion of the imported goods, justifying confiscation and imposing fines. The appellant challenged this decision in the Calcutta High Court, where a single Judge set aside the confiscation order but upheld the penalty on the Purser.

3. Division Bench Ruling:
The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the term "substantial portion" should not be interpreted solely based on the value of the missing goods. They highlighted the legislative intent to prevent smuggling and upheld the confiscation of the vessel.

4. Supreme Court Appeal:
The appellant argued in the Supreme Court that the term "substantial portion" should refer to the goods imported on the vessel, not just the missing items. They contended that confiscation should not apply if the missing portion is insignificant compared to the total imported goods.

5. Legal Interpretation:
Section 115(1)(e) of the Customs Act allows for confiscation of conveyances with missing substantial portions of imported goods. The provision aims to prevent customs duty evasion by holding the vessel accountable for missing goods unless adequately explained by the master.

6. Judicial Analysis:
The Supreme Court clarified that the term "substantial portion" in Section 115(1)(e) should consider both the quantity and value of the missing goods concerning the total imported cargo. The objective is to deter smuggling while ensuring fairness to vessel owners facing confiscation.

7. Decision and Rationale:
The Court ruled that the missing 45,000 cigarettes did not constitute a substantial portion of the imported goods in quantity or value. Therefore, the vessel should not be confiscated under Section 115(1)(e). The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, restoring the single Judge's decision.

8. Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's interpretation of "substantial portion" in the Customs Act clarified the criteria for confiscation of vessels carrying imported goods with missing items. The ruling balanced the objectives of preventing smuggling with the proportionality of penalties imposed on vessel owners, ensuring a fair application of the law.