9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of vessel under Customs Act for alleged contraventions. 2. Alleged contraventions of Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34 of the Customs Act. 3. Lack of culpability on the part of the master. 4. Justification for absolute confiscation of the vessel. 5. Imposition of penalty on the master. Confiscation of Vessel: The appeal involved the confiscation of a vessel under the Customs Act due to alleged contraventions. The vessel, M.V. Free Trader, entered Indian territorial waters and was later seized by Customs authorities. The adjudicating Commissioner ordered absolute confiscation of the vessel under Sections 111(f) and 111(h) of the Act, along with imposing a penalty on the master, Captain M.A. Noor. Alleged Contraventions of Customs Act: The master was accused of contravening Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34 of the Customs Act. The failure to file an arrival report and manifest was noted. However, considering the circumstances, the provisions related to loading and unloading of goods were deemed irrelevant as the vessel was without cargo. The equating of the "ship" with "goods" was questioned, leading to a discussion on the applicability of the charged provisions. Lack of Culpability: The judgment highlighted the lack of culpability on the part of the master, Captain M.A. Noor, in the events leading to the vessel's seizure. The master and crew had faced significant hardships, including non-payment of wages and being stranded. The order was criticized for portraying a darker picture than the actual situation, with discrepancies noted between the show cause notice and the Commissioner's findings. Justification for Confiscation: The Tribunal acknowledged the technical liability of the vessel for confiscation but emphasized that an option for redemption should have been provided under Section 125 of the Act. Despite upholding the confiscation, the Tribunal granted the master an option to redeem the vessel by paying a token fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh, considering the circumstances and hardships faced by the master and crew. Imposition of Penalty: The penalty imposed on the master was reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000, which had already been paid. The Tribunal modified the impugned order, providing relief to the master in light of the hardships endured and the lack of intentional wrongdoing. The appeal was disposed of with the order being modified accordingly to reflect the Tribunal's findings and decisions.
|
