2004 (1) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shipping (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. are the agents of the vessel M.T. Sigiri and in that capacity they filed an IGM No. 1992, dated 8-7-98 at the port of Mumbai with Nil Cargo declaration. The said vessel was engaged in towing a vessel by name Meng Kiat to Alang Port. However Sigiri developed engine trouble off Mumbai Port on account of bad weather and lack of bunkers. As no help was forthcoming in sp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... vessel Meng Kiat . The reasons for such imposition are that Meng Kiat landed at a place which was not declared as a landing place and the agents of Sigiri filed a Nil manifest despite the fact that they towed Meng Kiat into the territorial waters of India. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for both the appellants argued that the agents of Sigiri could not have filed any m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The agents of the said vessel who came into picture after the vessel was seized cannot be held responsible for landing it at unauthorised places. 5. The order of the Commissioner lengthy and winding is totally untenable. Neither the agents of Sigiri nor the agents of Meng Kiat have committed any offence punishable under Section 112(b) of the C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X