1991 (7) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Determining whether the subject container should be considered a 'package' under Section 118(a) of the Customs Act or be treated as part of the conveyance under Section 115.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the owners of a shipping vessel challenging the confiscation order of a container by the Customs authorities. The container was found to contain contraband goods upon arrival in Bombay. The appellants denied involvement in smuggling and argued that they were not responsible for the contents of the container, as it was stuffed by shippers and transported in a sealed condition. The adjudicating authority exonerated the appellants from personal liability but ordered the confiscation of the container under Section 118(a) of the Customs Act.

The main argument presented was whether the subject container should be considered a 'package' under Section 118(a) or part of the conveyance under Section 115. The appellants contended that containers, when used for transport, should be treated as part of the vessel and not as separate packages. They highlighted the distinction between containers and packages, emphasizing the role of containers in modern shipping practices and the need for protection against loss and damage.

The Customs authorities argued that the container, being the vessel for smuggling contraband goods, fell under the definition of a 'package' subject to confiscation under Section 118(a). They maintained that the liability for confiscation of the container was separate from the penal liability of the appellants under Section 112.

The Tribunal analyzed the definitions of containers and packages, considering the evolving practices in the shipping industry. It noted that containers could serve as both packing articles and modes of transport, with specific rules governing their use. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of knowledge and reasonable belief in determining liability for confiscation under the Customs Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that when containers are supplied by shipping agencies for the sole purpose of transporting consignments, they should be considered part of the conveyance under Section 115, not as separate packages under Section 118(a). As the owners of the vessel were not implicated in the smuggling activities and had no knowledge of the contents, the immunity available to the vessel extended to the subject container. Therefore, the order of confiscation of the container under Section 118(a) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.