9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are challenging the legality of the order dated August 24, 1977 passed by the Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive) Bombay confiscating the vessel s.s. "Mohamadi" under Section, 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and giving an option to redeem the same on the payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The petitioners M/s. Mogul Line Limited are a fully owned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were seized and a show cause notice dated July 2, 1977 was issued to the Master and the owners of the ship to explain why the vessel should not be confiscated as it was used as the means of transport in the smuggling of the goods. 3. The petitioners and the Master of the ship filed their statements denying any knowledge that the vessel was used for transport of the smuggled goods. It was pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... establish that the smuggling activities were carried out without any knowledge and on the strength of that finding, ordered confiscation of the vessel. The Officer did not impose any personal penalty on the Master or the owner under Section 112 of the Customs Act on the finding that sufficient evidence of knowledge has not been led either against the owner or the Master. This order is under chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The observation of the Additional Collector that the Master must lead positive evidence to establish that he had no knowledge of the smuggling activities is incorrect. It is not possible to establish a negative fact about the absence of knowledge by leading positive evidence. The approach of the Additional Collector is obviously erroneous. In fact, the finding that the Master had no personal knowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
