Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (11) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Control) Act, 1947, and penalty of Rs. 50,000 on appellant Dutkiewicz Tomasz, Chief Steward, and Rs. 25,000 on appellant E. Chrzanieckj, Master of M.V. LENINGRAD, under Section 112 of the Act. 2. On the basis of prior information, the Customs officers intercepted the vessel m.v. LENINGRAD, at the outer anchorage of Madras Harbour on 15-3-1988 and boarded the vessel and obtained boarding particulars with reference to all the bonded stores. The Chief Steward, the appellant herein, declared in the Store List the following goods :- (1) Whisky 456 Bottles. (2) Brandy 12 Bottles. (3) Rum 2 Bottles. (4) Vodka 152 Bottles. (5) Wine 40 Bottles. (6) Cigarettes 89,230 Nos. and (7) Beer 1597 cases. The private property of all the cr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d not bring them within the mischief of Section 111(d) or (m) rendering them liable for any penalty under Section 112 of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the admitted case of the Department is that all the Beer cases in question had been declared as bonded ship stores. It was urged that when all the quantity had been admittedly declared as bonded stores, there would not be any mis-declaration and even assuming for the purpose of argument that some crew members have secreted the same for their personal consumption that would not render the goods liable for confiscation either under Section 111(d) or (m) of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that he is assailing only the propriety of the findings with reference .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rned counsel for the appellants, at this stage made a statement from the Bar that the appellant is not claiming the goods and is restricting the appeal only with reference to the legality of the penalty levied on the appellants under the Act. We record the declaration made by the learned counsel from the Bar and hold that the Department would not be liable to return the goods or their proceeds to the appellants in the above circumstances. In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed and the penalty set aside. 6. [Assent per : V.P. Gulati, Member (T)]. - I agree with the conclusions of brother Shri Kalyanam and I would like to elaborate on what has been set out in the above order by dictating a separate order i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rs and he has also submitted that he did not know the names of the crew members and the officers who had stored the beer cases in the laundry room. The crew members were specifically given a questionnaire asking whether they had liquor, cigarettes, electronic items, etc. other than those declared in the private property list and all the crew members and officers have indicated that they did not have anything other than what they declared in the private property list. From this it is clear that the statement of the Chief Steward that the beser cases in the laundry room belong to the crew members is incorrect. Therefore it appears that the beer cases kept in the laundry room other than the 50 cases of beer, was purchased by somebody on board .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the same in fact belonged to the crew members. The fact that the goods were purchased from a place outside India and were carried in the vessel does not by itself constitute an offence until it can be shown that the same had not been declared to the authorities. The investigation does not show that anybody in particular had owned up the goods and for reasons best known to the Chief Steward he has also not come out clean as regards the ownership of the goods. It has also not been shown from the record that the purchase had been made out of the ship s funds and the Captain has also not owned up the purchase. It has been, however, held by the lower authority that since the goods neither belonged to the ship nor was the property of the ind .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates