TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons including the appellant M/s. Allana Sons Pvt. Ltd. He also levied fine of Rs. 5 lakhs on the owner of the vessel under Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act. The appeal is for quashing the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each levied under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act. 2. Appellants are the owners of AL-GILANI and other Appellant was employed in the said ship. The vessel arrived at Bombay on 6-3-1986. On 7-3-1986 the Customs officials conducted a rummage. Officials took along with them other employees Pakkiri and Lourdhu along with their CDCs another employee called Saheb. Nothing was found on that day. On 8-3-1986 they again conducted a search. They took away Abdul Khadir Mohammed Kapadi, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce or animal is proved to have so used that conveyance without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent or if any of the person incharge of the conveyance or animal and all of them taken such precautions against such use as/or the time being specified in the rules. Since the rules have not been made by the Government the adjudicating authority cannot proceed under this provision. He also cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in Garware Shipping Corporation and P.R. Sawant Master of the Vessel v. J.H. Joglekar - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 375. The ld. DR Shri V.K. Puri adopted the reasoning of order-in-original. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. Section 115(2) reads as under : 115(2) Any conveyance or animal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of K.I. Pawunni v. Asstt. Collector - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 fairly enables the authorities to find guilty of the offences on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. In the case of Naresh J. Shukhwani v. U.O.I. - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 258 the Supreme Court held that statement recorded under Section 108 forms substantial evidence and person can be held to be contravened provisions of Customs Act. So also in the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabria v. U.O.I. 1997 (89) E.L.T. 646. Section 112(a) of the Act does not provide for mens rea. Whereas Section 112(b) of the Act provides for the same. We are therefore of the view that for the offence of Section 112(a) of Customs Act and provision of Section 74 of the Gold (Control) Act the case has been pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
