TMI Blog1986 (10) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Madras rummaged the vessel M.V. Chidambaram which had arrived from Singapore and berthed at North Quay of Madras Harbour. The rummaging operations went on for about 4 days i.e. 28.11.84, 29.11.84, 1.12.84 and 2.12.84. Huge quantities of textiles and other goods of foreign origin were recovered from various places by the authorities from the ship during the said rummaging operations. For the purpose of convenience the places, number of bundles and the approximate value of the goods are indicated hereunder :- Place No. of Bundles Value Rs. C.i.f. Between the bulk-head and ceiling A.C. Plant room on C Deck The funnel exhaust Breathing apparatus licker on B Deck Deck crew common toilet )25 )6 )1 )8 2 zip bags) 88,000 Ten unoccupied passengers cabins at the Port side of D deck lots of plastic bag bundles stacked up between bulk-head and side pannelling of the cabins. ) ) ) ) ) 55,260 Auditorium of the vessel 83 1,26,170 Auditorium of the vessel )63 Unoccupied passengers cabins on the star. board side o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffered prejudice and the impugned order is therefore vitiated. Regarding the shipping agent K.P.V. Shaik Mohd. Rowther Co., the learned Counsel contended that there is no legal basis much less any evidence warranting the imposition of penalty on them in the circumstances of this case. It was urged that the shipping agent discharges only certain functions such as filing statutory documents etc. and cannot be liable if contraband goods were recovered from the ship on which either statutorily or otherwise the shipping agents have no control whatever. In respect of other appellants who are crew members of the ship the learned Counsel contended that appellant Khalasi was a maintenance officer while appellant Dravidamani was only a petty officer. Likewise it was urged that appellant Fernando was only a petty officer for maintenance while appellant John Mathew was only Deck utility hand in charge of saloon. It was urged that merely because the appellants were in charge of maintenance of certain places like auditorium, passengers bunks and cabins they cannot be made liable inasmuch as those places are easily accessible to the passengers of the ship and others as well. The learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished to the appellant in spite of specific request by him by his letter dated 8.5.85. The learned Counsel also assailed the finding of the adjudicating authority that appellant Gajraj opted not to reply as incorrect. Finally the learned Counsel also adverted to the omission of the sub-section (a) or (b) of Section 112 in the show cause notice and pleaded that it has resulted in prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of the case against him. 4. The learned S.D.R. submitted that very substantial quantities of contraband goods from various places of the ship have admittedly been recovered and nobody has claimed the goods. The goods under seizure admittedly were not entered in the ships store list or the private property list of the crew members. The Master of the ship holding a high position and responsibility, it was contended cannot disown his responsibility and merely plead ignorance of the presence of such huge quantity of goods. The learned S.D.R.. urged that the magnitude of the seizure, various places wherefrom the goods were seized would be proof positive of the fact that the Master of the ship knew about the presence of the contraband goods under seizure. Regarding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Master has taken reasonable precautions in the circumstances and could not have any prior knowledge at all about the existence of the goods under seizure. The reasoning of the judgment of the Bombay High Court relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case because we find from the evidence on record that the Master should have been aware of the presence of the contraband goods under seizure in the present case. We agree with the submissions of the learned S.D.R. that non-mention of the sub-section either clause (a) or (b) of Section 112 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of this case has not caused any prejudice to the appellants herein because all the necessary ingredients have been clearly set out in the show cause notice. It is not disputed before us that none of the appellants ever putforth any plea that they were not in a position to give a reply to the show cause notice by reason of any vagueness with reference to the allegation therein or by the non-mention of particular sub-clause under which they were sought to be proceeded against. We therefore find that the ratio of the ruling of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. We therefore set aside the penalty imposed on appellant Sripad Thite under the impugned order. So far-as Gajraj is concerned on consideration of the facts on record we find that contraband goods under seizure from various places under his control could not have been stored up there without his knowledge and being the Welfare Officer and admittedly having been in possession of the keys to the auditorium, unoccupied cabins and other places Gajraj cannot pretend he never knew anything at all as to how contraband goods of such huge quantity came to be stored up in various cavities in various places. We pursued the letter of Gajraj addressed to the Collector of Customs, Madras dated 28.5.85 and a careful perusal of the letter gives an unmistakable impression that Gajraj as rightly observed by the adjudication authority under the impugned order was one who was aware of the practice of contraband goods being transported through the vessel in question. The acquittal of Gajraj in criminal prosecution would not ipso facto nullify or invalidate an order of adjudication namely the impugned order herein. The evidence that is admissible in a criminal prosecution before a criminal court is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
