9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked? b. Whether there can be a confiscation of the vessel under Section 115 of the Act when there is a clear finding that the owners of the ship, the applicant herein and the Master of the vessel had not made any alterations to the vessel for the purpose of concealing the goods nor had they abetted in such alterations c. Whether a confiscation of the vessel under Section 115 of the Act is liable to be automatically set aside when the owners and the Master of the vessel are absolved from penal action under Section 117 of the Act? d. Whether a ship is liable for confiscation under Section 115 (1) of the Customs Act in the absence of rules made therein prescribing the nature of prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neous goods valued at Rs. 1,153/- (M.V.) were recovered from 3 crew members for non-declaration. Separate action is taken under the provisions of the Customs Act in this regard. While the rummage of the cabins and other places was in (ii) progress, the Customs Officers noticed 4 cavities (Cutways), on opening the bolster on the forward wooden lining of the bulk-head near the bed in the 4 cabins under the occupation of four ship's personnel. Particulars of the persons and cavities are stated below: Mr. Stasinopoulos Harlampose, 2nd Officer. Cutway a) measurement: 11.5 cms x 31.5 cms. Space accessible from the Cutway: 80 cms x 20 cms x 90 cms - 14400 Cub. cms. Mr. Salim Nawam, A.B. b) Cutway measurement : 10 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cavities denied having any knowledge of the existence of the cavity in their cabins. They stated that they did not make the said cavities, that they did not use those cavities at any time and that their predecessors and the Master of the vessel did not inform them about the existence of these cavities. Mr. I. Bartzis, Master of the vessel, in his voluntary (v) statement dated 10-11-1982 given before the Customs Officer immediately after cavities were detected stated that he had been working on board the vessel for the last 5 months; that when the Customs Officers informed about the existence of the 4 cavities in 4 cabins under the occupation of Mr.Stasinopoulose Haralapose, 2nd Officer, G.Kornizakis, Bosun, Salim Nawam, A.B, and A. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for penal action under Section 117 of the Act. The said vessel was seized under the Customs Act and provisionally released. A show cause notice was issued to M/s. International Shipping Co. Ltd., about the action contemplated under Section 115 (1)(a) and 117 of the Act. After consideration of their written reply and the representation made at the personal hearing, the Addl. Collector confiscated the vessel under Section 115 (1)(a) of the Act allowing the same to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- recording the following findings:- "It is observed that the cavities found were not meant for maintenance of the vessel. No pipes or cables were noticed. The Department, however, did not find any contraband goods in these cavities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law is involved. Regarding question (b) - The question is no longer res integra. In dealing with Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 in the case of 'Everett Orient Line v. Jasjit Singh' (AIR 1959 Cal. 257), the Calcutta High Court has held that what makes it liable to confiscation is the entry and presence of a tainted vessel within the limits of any port in India and not whether the cavity was made by the Master of the vessel, the owner thereto or even use in any particular manner. The present Section is worded similar to Section 52A; being a settled question of law, this question does not arise for reference. Regarding question (c) - Section 117 provides for the imposition of a penalty on any person who contravenes any provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
