2004 (2) TMI 439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . It is the case of the appellants that she was the owner of the vessel in which smuggled goods were found but since she had no knowledge of the smuggling, the vessel should not have been confiscated. Reliance is also placed on the finding of the Adjudicating Commissioner that the appellant was not found liable for penalty. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants also relies on the follo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ical finding in Para 4(b) of the order-in-original that the entire episode of smuggling of the foreign exchange in the impugned vessel was "with the knowledge and consent of master of the vessel." He also draws attention to the provision of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 justifying confiscation of the vessel. 3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I find that Secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gh. I find that a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs only has been imposed for redemption of the vessel valued at Rs. 70 lakhs. I also find that the value of the smuggled foreign currency is over Rs. 1.43 crore. As such, the redemption fine imposed is very much on the lower side and I do not think any reduction in the same is necessary. 5. Appeal is dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X