9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les contained 10 writst watches of foreign origin valued at Rs. 1,500/- c.i.f. and 10 gold bars of 10 tolas each valued at Rs. 60.632/- c.i.f. From a different part of the vessel were also found 2 paper bundles and one bundle with adhesive tape near the fire extinguisher on the B-Deck passengers bunk space under ropes in the foredeck. These bundles contained 26 wrist watches valued at Rs. 5,275/-c.i.f. The entire contraband was seized under panchnama. No one came forward to claim any of those articles. On the same day, i.e. 21st April 1978, the Master's voluntary statement was recorded, wherein inter alia he emphasised the precautions taken by him, namely issuing a strong admonition to the Officers and crew from indulging in any illegal activities like smuggling and the penal consequences thereof, and fortifying his admonition by personally conducting a search of the vessel shortly prior to its arrival in Bombay. In his statement the Master also stated that the spot where the 26 wrist watches were found was an open space accessible to the entire crew and passengers and that the Officers' toilet was used by two Second Officers, 8 Engineering Officers and 2 Pursers and was also acces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Master was not relevant to the question of confiscation. 4. Section 115 pertains to confiscation of conveyances. As far as is material for the purpose of the present appeal, sub-section (2) relied on by Mr. Bulchandani, provides that any conveyance used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the conveyance and that each of them had taken all such precautions against such use as are for the time being specified in the rules. 5. Pausing here for a moment, it was not urged by Mr. Bulchandani and rightly so, that the contraband found its way in the vessel with the knowledge or connivance either of the Company or the Master. What however Mr. Bulchandani emphasised was that knowledge and connivance of the Company and Master must be presumed unless they established that the carriage of the contraband was without their knowledge or connivance. The short answer to this contention is that in the facts and circumstances of this case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of an ipse dixit hurled across the Bar, with nothing to commend it. What also Mr. Bulchandani seems to lose sight of is that it is not that a part of the contraband was just found lying near the fire extinguisher as he suggests. It was discovered under some coils of ropes near the fire extinguisher at a spot accessible to Officers, crew and passengers alike. The false ceiling in the toilet where the remaining contraband was found always remained open and was accessible to not less than 12 Officers including 2 pursers and menial staff looking after its cleanliness. What also Mr. Bulchandani does not take into account is that Officers of the Rummaging Department are experts, trained for this type of work, which the master is not. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that the contraband was not hidden by somebody after the search was carried out by the Master. And finally, to expect the Master, leaving aside his other duties, to go about tapping an entire large ship in search of false crevices and ceilings as suggested by Mr. Bulchandani, is ludicrous. The fact that he took a search as a reasonable and prudent man would do, is enough. If Mr. Bulchandani's various su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sarily mean goods which are legitimately brought into India from a place outside India. The words "any goods" in Section 2(25) must mean, not the classification of goods like smuggled, shop-soiled, damaged, decayed and so forth but must mean goods in their different varieties from a pin to an elephant legitimately carried by the vessel. Thus in this case, the Master was under no obligation to amend the manifest by including therein the contraband articles surreptitiously placed on board the vessel by some unknown person or persons. This is brought to be forefront by the Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1971 framed under the Customs Act. Regulation 3 sets out that every import manifest which shall be delivered in duplicate, must cover all the goods carried in a vessel and shall consist of a general declaration in Form I, a cargo declaration in From II, the vessel's stores list in Form III and a list in Form IV of private property in the possession of the Master, Officers and crew. Form I comprises of a general declaration pertaining to the particulars of the vessel, to wit, the name of the owner, vessel, its nationality and tonnage, the Master's name and nationality, ports of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Master in the present case. In that decision there is no reference to the Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1971, nor could there be for those Regulations of 1971 were not in force when the decision in Crighton's case was given in 1968. Moreover, what Mr. Bulchandani classifies as findings in that case do not appear to be so but appear to be obiter and have not been applied in arriving at the decision in that case. This is borne out from the following passage at page 265 of the Report which reads as under :- "16. I need not, however, go to the length of holding that mens rea has no place in interpreting Section 30 read with Sections 111 and 112 of the Act, because I find another infirmity in the order of penalty, on which alone I intend to proceed in this case." (The underlining is ours.) The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court thereafter proceeded to exonerate the Master before him from personal penalty, on the ground that the department was satisfied that the Master was not guilty of fraudulent intention when he failed to include the contraband goods in the manifest submitted by him. In the present case we are satisfied that in failing to amend the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
