Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1985 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (7) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and vessel under Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act.
3. Appeal against the confiscation.
4. Reference to the High Court under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act.

Confiscation of goods and vessel under Customs Act:
The case involved the vessel Vishwa Mamta, which arrived at the Madras Harbour carrying general cargo. Customs officers found articles of foreign origin hidden on the vessel, leading to the confiscation of goods worth Rs. 80,890 and the vessel under Sections 111(d), (f), and 115(2) of the Customs Act, with an option to redeem the vessel by paying a fine of Rs. 20,000.

Interpretation of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act:
The appeal argued that the owner and Master of the vessel had taken steps to prevent smuggling activities, questioning the confiscation under Section 115(2) due to the absence of promulgated rules. The respondent highlighted previous cases regarding the interpretation of Section 115(2) and emphasized the scale of concealment of contraband goods on the vessel as evidence that reasonable precautions were not taken.

Appeal against the confiscation:
The Tribunal, relying on its earlier orders and the reasons detailed in the impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the applicants. It was noted that the concealment of contraband goods in significant bulk throughout the vessel indicated a lack of reasonable precautions taken by the Master, reinforcing the decision to uphold the confiscation.

Reference to the High Court under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act:
The applicants sought to refer questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order to the High Court of Madras under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal determined that most questions raised were matters of fact, except for one specific question related to the validity of the defense based on the non-framing of rules under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. This question was deemed suitable for reference to the High Court for further clarification.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates