9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt question involved in this petition is one of correctly interpreting and applying the provisions of Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not in dispute that during the course of the search of the said vessel on 5th June, 1976 certain concealed packages containing textiles, cassette tapes, batteries, cardamoms, transistor radios, taperecorders, electronic calculators and wrist watches of foreign origin were discovered. The market value of the items was estimated at over Rs. 8,50,000/-. They were seized in the reasonable belief, that the same were unauthorisedly imported and hence liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. During the course of investigations which followed, statements of the Master and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be given an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance 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. Explanation. - In this section, "market price" means market price at the date when the goods are seized." 5. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that it has been found by the Additional Collector of Customs, whose order is impugned, that the goods had been concealed in the vessel without the knowledge either of the owner or their agents and the Captain. Findings to this effect are to be found in the findings given by the Additional Collector where it has been observed that "from the statement of the Master and the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate and prove that the contraband items were carried without their knowledge or connivance. As far as the present case is concerned, there is an express finding of the Additional Collector to this effect. Therefore, the parties indected in the opening part of section 115(2) have discharged the burden which has been cast on them in the first part of sub-section (2). That, however, is not enough. It has to be further demonstrated and proved that the person in charge of the conveyance, i.e. the Master or Captain of the ship had taken all precautions against such misuse as are for the time being specified in the rules. The statutory provision does not use the words "reasonable precautions" or bring in any concept of a reasonable person. An abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
