9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of fishing trawler Jal Pari by Customs Department due to alleged involvement in smuggling silver. 2. Contention by the appellant's advocate regarding lack of evidence establishing Jal Pari's role in smuggling. 3. Departmental representative's argument justifying confiscation based on circumstantial evidence and changes in the trawler. 4. Lack of direct evidence linking Jal Pari to smuggling despite suspicious circumstances. 5. Dispute over the return of the vessel to the appellant after its sale by the department. 6. Calculation of expenses and duty deduction from the sale proceeds of the vessel. Analysis: 1. The Customs Department confiscated the fishing trawler Jal Pari after linking it to the smuggling of silver ingots. The trawler was found abandoned in Tivrem river, Goa, along with captured silver ingots. The primary perpetrator was identified as Syed Nawaz, with Issaq Kassam allegedly involved in transporting the silver using the trawler. The Collector imposed penalties and ordered the confiscation of Jal Pari, leading to the appeal against the vessel's confiscation. 2. The appellant's advocate argued that the Collector failed to prove Jal Pari's involvement in the smuggling, emphasizing the lack of explicit statements from interrogated individuals confirming the trawler's use in the illegal activity. The advocate deemed the evidence insufficient to establish the trawler's role in silver smuggling based on the preponderance of probability. 3. In contrast, the departmental representative justified the confiscation based on circumstantial evidence, such as the proximity of the seized silver to Jal Pari, changes in the trawler's equipment, and Issaq Kassam's suspicious actions. The representative highlighted discrepancies in the trawler's engine and the presence of barrels with United Arab Emirates markings as incriminating factors. 4. Despite the suspicious circumstances, there was a lack of direct evidence implicating Jal Pari in the smuggling operation. Witnesses from the intercepted van did not mention the trawler's involvement, raising doubts about its role. The absence of concrete evidence connecting the trawler to the smuggling operation cast uncertainty on the confiscation decision. 5. The judgment addressed the issue of returning Jal Pari to the appellant after its sale by the department. The appellant was entitled to the sale proceeds after deducting expenses, but a dispute arose regarding the duty deduction for the Isuzu engine. The tribunal dismissed the significance of the duty argument, especially since the trawler had been sold at a significantly lower value than initially estimated. 6. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, overturning the confiscation order of Jal Pari. The tribunal directed the return of the sale proceeds, minus expenses, to the appellant, concluding that the evidence presented was insufficient to uphold the vessel's confiscation based on the benefit of doubt principle.
|
