9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR for the respondent. Shri Thawrani has stated that Regent Travels Company is a proprietary firm, whose proprietress is Smt. Gita Saha. The bus belongs to this firm. Smt. Saha gave her bus to M/s. Beduine Travels on a contract for 10 days from 24-10-.1983 to 3-11-1983 for excursion tour to Nepal. Beduine Travels put two managers and 4 cooks in the bus. The owner of the bus put one driver (Shri Madan Bandopadhya), one cleaner (Shri Kedar Prasad Sahu) and one Assistant (Shri Basudev Saha) (as per the impugned order he is the manager of the appellants). Some passengers of the bus loaded contraband goods at Kathmandu under threat. Basudev Saha had put goods worth Rs. 400/-. The bus was intercepted by the Customs Officers at Uluberia. The smugg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s argued that Shri Basudev Saha kept the smuggled goods in the tool box and the key of the tool box was lying with him. Both he and the driver knew that the contraband goods were being loaded. He has, therefore, argued that the bus was correctly confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. 4. I have considered the arguments of both sides. Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :- Any conveyance or animal used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the conveyance or animal proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bus as well as Shri Basudev Saha, Manager of the appellant-firm had the full knowledge that the smuggled goods were loaded and were being transported in the bus. Shri Saha himself was transporting the contraband goods in the tool box of the bus and was having the key of the tool box with him. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment the Hon ble High Court observed inter alia as follows :- It is true that the Additional Collector has recorded a specific finding that the Master or the owner of the ship had no personal knowledge about the smuggling activities and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed under Section 112 of the Act. In view of this clear-cut finding, it is difficult to hold that the Master had knowledge that the vessel was used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case being distinguishable from the cases relied on by the learned advocate, as stated above, I am not in a position to follow those decisions in the present case. Further, in the case of Shri Muk Tin Fui Another v. Collector of Customs (P) Bombay, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 982 (Tribunal), (this decision has not been cited by either party before me), the West Regional Bench of this Tribunal has held that confiscation of the ship is proper if the master is very much involved in smuggling and that for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, no mens rea is required. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, the Tribunal considered the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Garware Shipping Corporation, repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
