1999 (1) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Penalty/Confiscation/Redemption fine - Confiscation of goods - Demand - Confiscation of ships set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalties and confiscation of goods and vessels by the Commissioner under Section 112.
2. Transhipment of goods from one vessel to another outside the limits of Kandla port.
3. Omission to declare cargo at Sikka port meant for Jebel Ali.
4. Shortage found in quantities discharged at Kandla port.
5. Imposition of penalties on agents and their employees without specific reasons.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner imposed penalties and ordered confiscation of goods and vessels under Section 112. The penalties ranged from Rs. 20.00 lacs to Rs. 35.00 lacs on different appellants, with options for redemption by payment of fines. Confiscation was ordered for goods carried on vessels with options for redemption. The judgment addressed the validity and proportionality of these penalties and confiscations.

2. The case involved transhipment of goods from one vessel to another outside the limits of Kandla port. The Commissioner held the transfer unauthorized, leading to liability under Section 111 for confiscation. However, the judgment analyzed the circumstances of the transhipment, including the good faith of the appellants, the permissions sought and granted, and the technical nature of the contravention.

3. The omission to declare cargo at Sikka port meant for Jebel Ali was considered a contravention of Section 111. The judgment examined the intent behind the omission, the subsequent discharge at Jebel Ali, and the evidence provided in the form of a landing certificate from Jebel Ali Port authorities to determine the leniency required in this case.

4. A shortage in quantities discharged at Kandla port was termed as transhipment loss by the Commissioner. The judgment highlighted that duties had already been demanded and paid on these quantities before the notice was issued, questioning the sustainability of the Commissioner's order in this regard.

5. Penalties imposed on agents and their employees without specific reasons were scrutinized. The judgment found a lack of justification for these penalties, especially when penalties had already been imposed on the masters. The issue of imposing penalties on ship owners in addition to masters was also addressed, leading to modifications in the penalties imposed on the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment modified the Commissioner's order regarding redemption fines, confiscation of goods, and penalties imposed on various parties involved. It emphasized the technical nature of the contraventions, the absence of mala fide intentions, and the need for greater care in handling such situations. The appeals were allowed in part, with consequential relief granted.