9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On 26-9-1986, the Customs authorities at Bolghaty Kerala boarded the Yacht HOA. The Captain of the Yacht and the person incharge of the Yacht was one Zeborowski. The Customs authorities found a packet underneath a bed spread above the water tank in the mid-accommodation of the Yacht. Immediately the Captain caught hold of this packet and passed it on to his colleague one James David Munro who immediately jumped into the backwaters from the Yacht and dumped the packet into the water-bed. The Customs authorities subsequently salvaged the packet and the same was found to contain Hashish. Capt. Zeborowski also surrendered one steel dubba containing seven small packets of Hashish. Proceedings were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there cannot be any absolute confiscation of the Yacht in question in view of the proviso to Section 115 clause (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Counsel therefore urged that the order of absolute confiscation may be modified and the appellant permitted to redeem the Yacht on payment of a suitable fine as per law. In any event, the learned Counsel pleaded that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter remitted for re-consideration after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. Heard Shri K.M. Vadivelu, the learned D.R. 4. The fact that on 26-9-1986 the Customs authorities effected seizure of Hashish which was kept in the Yacht is not disputed and is indeed admitted. The learned Counsel for the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstituted thereafter for the absolute confiscation of the Yacht in question, is legally sustainable under the Customs Act, 1962. The Captain of the Yacht also immediately gave a confessional statement to the authorities admitting the fact of possession of Hashish. The Captain was proceeded against and penalised under the original order of the Assistant Collector and no appeal was also filed against the same. The order of the Assistant Collector regarding the culpability of Captain has become final. The short question that arises for our consideration in the appeal is whether the absolute confiscation of the Yacht is legally tenable or not, and whether the case would be governed by the proviso to Section 115 clause (2) of the Act. Section 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector has no jurisdiction, cannot be acceded to because adjudication and confiscation of the goods in the present case is Hashish the value of which is put at Rs. 7,927.50. It is only in consequence of having attempted to smuggle Hashish in the Yacht in question, the same was confiscated absolutely and the absolute confiscation of the Yacht was made in consequence of an offence by the Captain who was found to have kept Hashish concealed in the Yacht. There is nothing to indicate that the Yacht was being used as conveyance for carriage of goods or passengers on hire within the meaning of proviso to Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. We also do not agree with the plea of the learned Counsel that no opportunity was given to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
