2010 (3) TMI 564 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - absolute confiscation of smuggled silver - Submission that vessel entered Indian Shore due to bad weather and the cargo legitimate and was destined to Singapore. Chief Judicial Magistrate in prosecution proceedings held the goods confiscable and did not believe that accused was forced by natural calamity. Export manifest filed before Custom in UAE shows only 350 silver bricks while vessel contained watches watch bells also. Held that - evidence of landing agent who took care of lodging and other arrangements support case of revenue. Owner of goods not coming forward captain of vessel only trying to get goods released. Appeal rejected. Further held that penalty cannot be said to be not imposable just because landing not took place due to bad weather.

Issues Involved: Legitimacy of cargo, seizure of goods, evidence of firing, voluntary nature of statements, and imposition of penalties.

1. Legitimacy of Cargo and Seizure of Goods:
The case revolves around the seizure of 286 silver bricks and other foreign-origin goods from a wrecked vessel without any registration number or name. The vessel was found near the sea-shore of village Velas, Tal: Mandangad, Dist: Raigad. The customs officers confiscated the goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, Shri Omar Adam, claimed the goods were being transported officially to Singapore, supported by documents like the vessel's registration certificate, customs clearance certificates, and export manifest. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Ratnagiri concluded that the goods were liable for confiscation as the accused had reached the Indian sea shore intentionally, not due to natural calamity.

2. Evidence of Firing:
Shri Omar Adam contested the claim that the vessel was fired upon by authorities, arguing there was no evidence such as a logbook or bullet marks on the vessel. The Commissioner noted that whether there was firing or not was irrelevant to the case. The primary issue was the presence of undeclared goods like watches and watch belts on the vessel, which contradicted the export manifest filed in UAE, indicating only 350 silver bricks.

3. Voluntary Nature of Statements:
The appellant argued that his statements recorded by customs officials were not voluntary, as he did not understand Hindi or English, and the statements were recorded in Hindi. He claimed the statements were obtained under duress during prolonged custody. The Commissioner, however, relied on the statements and other evidence, dismissing the appellant's claims about the language barrier and voluntariness of the statements.

4. Imposition of Penalties:
Shri Abdullah Hussain, identified as the landing agent, contended that he played no role in the alleged smuggling and that the vessel's entry into Indian waters was due to bad weather. The Commissioner imposed penalties on him, noting his involvement in organizing the landing and making arrangements for the crew. The Tribunal rejected the argument that no penalty should be imposed just because the landing could not occur due to inclement weather.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to confiscate the silver absolutely and impose penalties on the involved parties. The appeals were rejected, affirming the findings that the goods were intended for illegal landing and the statements and evidence provided by the crew members corroborated the case against the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized that no legitimate owner of the goods had come forward, and the captain's claim was insufficient to challenge the confiscation.

← Previous Next →