9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JAG DHIR, belonging to the appellant in Appeal No. 616/83 under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing a redemption fine of ₹ 35,000 in lieu of confiscation and also imposing on each of the appellants, a penalty of ₹ 50,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts relating to the appeal are as under :- 4. M.V. JAG DHIR, the vessel belonging to the appellant, M/s. Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited, Bombay, arrived at Port of Visakhapatnam on 16-8-1982 from the Port of Vancouver (B.C.) via Singapore and on 17-8-1982, Customs Officers started rummaging the same and the rummaging operations resulted in the recovery of the following goods from Hatch No. 6 in the ship. (a) Recovered from a rexine bag lying over the cargo (i) Johnie Walker Red Lable Scotch Whisky. ... 9 Qrt. Bottles (ii) Black & White Scotch Whisky ... 4 Qrt. '' (b) Recovered from a cloth bag lying over the cargo (i) Johnie Walker Red Lable Scotch Whisky ... 7 Qrts. (ii) White Horse Scotch Whisky ... 1 Qrt. (iii) Black & White Scotch Whisky ... 2 Qrts. (c) Recovered from a plastic bag lying over the cargo (i) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 No. 8. Travel Bags (folding type) 2 Nos. 9. Imperial special long range polycor slugs of 12 gauge shot sheels 10 pkts 5 Nos. each On 20-8-1982 after a part discharge of muriate of Petash from Hatch No. 6, digging operations of the cargo were undertaken against, which resulted in the recovery of the following goods of foreign origin. 1. Casio Personal HI Electronic Calculator 10 Nos. 2. Sony CHF compact Cassette tapes 58 Nos. 3. Intimate Spray Mist. 3.75 cms 4 Nos. 4. Sarees printed nylex 2 Nos. 5. Pants pieces 1.10 Mtrs. approx, each 2 Nos. 6. Shirt pieces 4 mtrs. approx. each 1 No. 7. Baba suits 9 Nos. 8. Children underwear 3 Nos. 9. Ladies Umbrellas 3 Nos. 10. Gents Umbrellas 5 Nos. 5. The aforesaid goods were seized under cover of Mahazar attested by witnesses. The Master of the Ship, the appellant in appeal No. 1 of 84 and the crew members were examined under Section 108(1) of the Customs Act, '1962 and their statements were recorded. On completion of investigations, show cause notices were issued to the appellants and others which eventually culminated in the orders now appealed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were kept neatly packed and in the circumstances, knowledge on the part of the Master can easily be presumed. It was further urged that no knowledge as a proposition of law or mens rea is necessary to bring home the charge of confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It was urged by the Departmental Representative that under Section 111 (f) of the Act, dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under this regulations in an import manifest or manifest report are liable to confiscation if they are not so mentioned and under Section 112, any person who in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 shall be liable to a penalty. A combined reading of Sections 111 and 112 would make it clear that any commission or omission on the part of a person in relation to any goods which would render such goods liable to confiscation would attract a penalty on the person concerned. In the instant case, contraband goods admittedly have not been mentioned in the import manifest and are therefore, liable for confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principles of natural justice is also not. legally tenable. The materials on record clearly indicate that the investigating officer who conducted the investigation has not only offered himself for cross-examination but also has been indeed cross-examined at length. When the officer who issued the show cause notice has not done any act of investigation but has merely issued the show cause notice, no purpose would be served in the appellants cross-examining the officer because even according to the Department, the officer who issued the show cause notice does not know personally anything about the recovery of the contraband or the connected investigation. We therefore, reject this contention of the appellants also as devoid of merits. 9. The contention of the appellants that Section 115(2) cannot be invoked is the absence of rules prescribing precautions to be taken by the owner or the person-in-charge of the vessel, is also not tenable because even if rules have not been prescribed regarding the precautions to be taken, if a vessel is found to be transporting contraband goods, the vessel will be liable for confiscation under law unless the owner of the person-in-charge o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. Petition Nos. 1984 and 2048 of 79 between M/s. Garware Shipping Corporation Ltd. v. J.H. Joglekar, Additional Collector of Customs (Preu.) Bombay. P.R. Swant, Master of the vessel, "RISHI VISWAMITRA" and Another v. J.H. Joglekar, Additional Collector and Another, and contended that Section 112 of the Act makes it clear that personal penalties can be imposed provided the owner or the Master of the ship does any act or omits to do any act or omission which would render confiscation of the goods under Section 111 of the Act. No doubt the ruling of the Bombay High Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that Section 112 pre-supposes that the act or failure on the part of any person is with prior knowledge of the existence of the goods on the vessel and in the absence of any knowledge of the existence of the goods, it is impossible to imagine that the owner or the Master would be required to file any import manifest or any import report setting out the list of such goods. We are not going now into the question of the applicability of ratio of the ruling of the Bombay High Court to the facts and circumstances of this case because on factual analysi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
