2003 (6) TMI 399 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of vessels under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Challenge to the confiscation by the appellants.
3. Lack of evidence showing vessels were used for transporting smuggled goods with the knowledge of the owner or his agent.
4. Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision in a similar situation.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved appeals against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of vessels and the order to redeem them on payment of a redemption fine. The vessels in question, MSV Bahare Tasnim and MSV Al-Shama, arrived at Bombay from Dubai with dutiable goods on board. The Customs formalities were completed, and a show cause notice was issued proposing the confiscation of the goods found on the vessels. The adjudicating authority confiscated the vessels and allowed redemption on payment of a fine.

The appellants challenged only the confiscation of the vessels, contending that under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962, a conveyance used for transporting smuggled goods is liable for confiscation unless the owner proves it was done without their knowledge or that of their agent. The appellants argued that there was no evidence to show that the vessels were used for carrying contraband goods with their knowledge or that of their agent. They relied on a previous Tribunal decision where vessels were confiscated but later set aside due to lack of evidence implicating the owner or agent in the smuggling activity.

The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the lower authority's decision to confiscate the vessels under Section 115, arguing that the necessary declarations were filed by the Tindels of the vessels regarding the crew members' private property and store list. However, it was highlighted that there was no evidence indicating that the vessels were knowingly used for transporting smuggled goods. The DR acknowledged that the goods found were declared in the private property list of the crew members, similar to the situation in the previous Tribunal decision relied upon by the appellants.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence to prove that the vessels were used for transporting smuggled goods with the knowledge of the owner or agent. Citing the earlier decision in a similar case, where confiscation was set aside due to lack of evidence implicating the owner or agent, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders for confiscation of the vessels.