9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eized money the ship cannot sail with 122 passengers because it has many obligations in every port. Round about 8.15 p.m. that day, on; questioning the Master stated that the Chief Purser had signed the Customs declaration form submitted at Cochin for and on behalf of himself and as authorised by him. The declared ship currency was only $ 3550 and that was seized was in excess. Though the Chief Purser claimed that the money belonged to passengers and that they were in possession of receipt issued by him and he had maintained a book of accounts for the same, he was not able to produce the book. By this time certain incidents have taken place which are being interpreted by the Department and the appellants in different ways. What happened appears to be that the ship gangway was lifted. The Department felt that thus its officers were confined to a corner by the Master and the Chief Purser with the assistance of Staff Capt. Zanetos Theostastos, Second Officer Mr. Remantas Haristos, Bosun, Anthasiou Georges and other crew members. It was also stated that the Captain assisted by others took away the currency seized by Customs by force after a scuffle. Later at the intervention of the ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is used as a conveyance on land and hence did not apply to a passenger ship. He found that there was a clear violation regarding non-declaration of currency in the manifest. Accordingly, he ordered confiscation of the currency under Sec. 111 (d)and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec. 13(1) of the FERA, 1973. Finding the various persons liable for action under Sec. 112 he imposed a penalty of ₹ 75,000/- on Captain, the Master of the Vessel; ₹ 50,000/-on Chief Purser of the vessel and a penalty of ₹ 5,000/- each on the staff Captain, II Mate and Bosun of the vessel. 4. Before us the advocate for the appellants urged that there was no import of currency into the country; for this proposition he relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sri Ramalinga Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. The Asst. Collector of Customs and another (1982 JSCTL p. 308). In that case some viscose staple fibre intended for Cochin was in a vessel which reached Bombay prior to a change in the rate of duty; the vessel stayed secure at that Port for a few days before she reached Cochin on 4-1-1979; it was held that there was no import of the goods at Bombay. On an analogy it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion provides that the bringing or sending into any port or place in India of any such article.... without being removed from the ship or conveyance in which it is/ being carried shall nonetheless be deemed to be a bringing, or, as the case may be, sending, into India of that article is prohibited. According to Sec. 67 ibid the restrictions under Sec. 13 of the FERA, 1973 shall be deemed to be one imposed under Sec. 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence the confiscation of the currency under Sec. 111(d) of the Act is maintainable in law. Sec. 111 is definitely attracted as the currency declaration is part of the import manifest and it is accepted that the seized and confiscated currency was not mentioned in the ship s currency declaration. 7. Next he referred to Sec. 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads: any person ..... concerned in carrying, removing.,.....or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under Sec. 111 attracts a penalty. In the case of the Staff Captain, the IInd Engineer and the Bosun, they did remove the currency or dealt with it in any other manner knowing that the currency was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded for Cochin came to be berthed at Bombay for a few days and then came on to Cochin; in such a situation it was held that the import had taken place at Cochin and not at Bombay. This is different from a situation where the present vessel m. v. Illiria came to Cochin and was anchored within the Port limits and there is a specific provision of Sec. 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act about prohibition and restriction that applies to goods which are not taken out of the vessel. 13. The case of R. K. Bhatia-AIR-1965 SC 1072 is not relevant to the present one as it dealt with Sec. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and not Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is differently worded. At the earlier point of time, a person concerned in the importation of prohibited goods was liable and the Court held that once the goods crossed the Customs frontier, illegal importation is complete and any person concerned with the illegally imported goods thereafter would not be covered by Sec. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. However, Sec. ll2(b) makes specific provision in respect of such goods. The principle laid down in Charandas Malhotra case-AIR 1968 Calcutta 28-is that impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
