9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector for absolute confiscation of the Yacht. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of show cause notice to the owner. 3. Applicability of the proviso to Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding confiscation of conveyance used for hire. 4. Legal sustainability of the confiscation of the Yacht under the Customs Act and Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector: The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of a Yacht under Sections 115(b) and 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 60(3) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appellant argued that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction as the value of the Yacht exceeded the limit under Section 122 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal held that the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction due to the offense involving Hashish worth Rs. 7,927.50. The confiscation was justified as a consequence of attempting to smuggle Hashish on the Yacht. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellant contended that the absolute confiscation was invalid as no show cause notice was given to the owner, violating natural justice principles. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that notice to the agent (Captain) was sufficient notice to the owner. The owner could not claim ignorance of the seizure, and no penalty was imposed on the owner directly. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, emphasizing the seriousness of trafficking Hashish and the lack of evidence supporting the Yacht's use for hire. Applicability of Proviso to Section 115(2) of the Customs Act: The appellant argued that the Yacht should not have been absolutely confiscated under the proviso to Section 115(2) as it was used for passenger transport for hire. However, the Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim. The Captain's statement indicated that the Yacht was not used for hire, but rather taken on a global tour without payment. Therefore, the Yacht did not fall within the scope of the proviso, justifying the confiscation. Legal Sustainability under Customs and NDPS Act: The Tribunal addressed the legality of the confiscation under both the Customs Act and the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It clarified that the Customs authorities had jurisdiction to seize Hashish from the Yacht and proceed with confiscation. The Captain's admission of possession and the absence of an appeal against his penalty affirmed the legality of the proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation due to the serious nature of Hashish trafficking and the Captain's involvement, dismissing the appeal. Overall, the Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the Yacht, emphasizing the severity of drug trafficking and the lack of evidence supporting the Yacht's use for hire, while rejecting jurisdictional challenges and violations of natural justice claims.
|
