9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne of Rs. 2.5 crores and imposing penalties under Section 112 and 114 of varying amounts on the other appellants. The ship was owned at the relevant time by Tentous Shipping Co. Ltd., a Cypress company, and was on time charter to Orient Express Line. At the relevant time, the ship was sailing between the ports of Mumbai and Arabian Gulf. The ship called at Mumbai on 2nd October, 1995, having arrived from Dubai. Rummaging of the ship that took place between 2nd and 5th October, which resulted in the recovery on 3rd of 4000 tolas of gold and recovery on the 5th October of US $ 25,00,000. It is on his finding that the appellants were concerned with smuggling of these goods that the Commissioner has confiscated and imposed penalties. 2. Half ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Pvt. Ltd., who was the agent at Mumbai of the owner. 4. The contention on behalf of Orient Express Lines, the charterer, in the memorandum of appeal (not represented at the hearing) is that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that it was concerned in any manner with the smuggling of the goods. This contention has to be accepted. There is nothing in the evidence in the proceedings which consist besides the panchnama and the statement of G. Ioannis, the master of the vessel, or of R. Konstantinos, or that P. Christos, Electrician, to implicate the charterer. Christo says in his statement that he was given the gold by a stranger who was in Dubai and asked him to carry it on return for 1000 Dollars. His statement on the face of it is hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of smuggling. There is nothing to show that the master was involved in the smuggling nor his employees. 6. The departmental representative emphasises the case law that the Commissioner has relied upon in coming to his conclusion with regard to penalty. In Mansuk C. Bhatt v. CC, 1988 (34) E.L.T. 230, the Tribunal remanded the matter for determining the liability to penalty of the owner of the ship. The Supreme Court judgment in Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1392 was concerned with Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 corresponding to Section 115(1)(a), rendering liable to confiscation a ship or vessel which has been specially constructed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce a fine not exceeding the market price of the goods which are sought to be smuggled or the smuggled goods, as the case may be. The master was directly in charge of the ship. It is not contended before us that the master was a callous youth with no experience in sailing having no knowledge about the smuggling of the goods. He was 55 years old, and could not have become the captain without sufficient experience, knowledge and skill. The ship was regularly sailing between Gulf ports and India. Despite this, the master has not taken any precaution. Even nominal in order to check the smuggling of the gold, he has not issued any instructions to his staff nor did he take the elementary precautions of even verifying or subjecting to check pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
