9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 115 of the Customs Act regarding the option to extend to the owner of the vessel. Analysis: The judgment involves a Reference Application under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act by the Collector of Customs, Preventive, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, seeking a statement of case to refer a point to the Gujarat High Court. The Collector questions whether the interpretation of Section 115 by the Tribunal is correct in law, specifically regarding the option to the owner of the vessel. The Collector argues that if a vessel is used for carrying contraband goods only, the owner is not entitled to an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. However, the respondent's advocate contends that the question raised is not a disputed question of law and is obvious, not requiring reference to the High Court. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the order in question, found that if the owner can establish that the confiscated conveyance was used for hire, an option to redeem the conveyance on payment of a fine must be given. The Tribunal clarified that the nature of the goods carried in a particular voyage does not determine the granting of the option; it depends on the character of the vessel. If the vessel is registered as a commercial carrier, the option must be provided, irrespective of the goods carried in a specific voyage. The Tribunal emphasized that the language of Section 115 is clear and unambiguous, allowing only one interpretation. The judgment references decisions from the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court regarding the classification of vessels based on their use for carrying goods between ports. Both High Courts held that the character of the vessel, not the goods carried, determines its classification. Applying this reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that if a commercial vessel brings only contraband goods in one voyage, it is still entitled to the option under Section 115. The Tribunal found no merit in the Reference Application and rejected it, affirming that the interpretation of the law was clear and did not require further consideration by the High Court.
|
