9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers are the agents of the said vessel which entered the Port of Bombay on 3rd February 1991. On the basis of intelligence received, on 9th February 1991 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay Zonal Unit rummaged the vessel at 3, Indira Docks, Bombay and found on board contraband material, namely 25 Silver bars and 25 small white silver bars. The vessel was detained and the petitioners were called upon to furnish a bond with bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.62,00,000/for release of the vessel as per the draft of the format provided by the Directorate. The petitioners contended that they were not obliged to furnish a bond or a bank guarantee in the form furnished by the Directorate and, in any event were not required to furnish a bond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guarantee given by the petitioners for release of the said vessel. The petitioners have approached this Court for injuncting the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee for recovery from them of the penalty imposed on the Second Officer and also for return of the bank guarantee duly cancelled. 3. The Collector by his order dated 15th July 1992 has held that the contraband silver bars were loaded onto the vessel by Mr. Aleksandr without the knowledge and consent of the owner or the Master of the ship. It is for this reason that the Collector did not impose a penalty of confiscation of the vessel and did not impose any fine on the owner or the Master of the ship. The Collector has further held that the goods were loaded by the Second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the most on the owner or the Master of the ship. They were not liable to give bond for payment of any fine or penalty that might be imposed on any crew member for any illegal and clandestine act under the Customs Act. However, the bond was forcibly taken under threat of detaining the vessel and not releasing it. In the circumstances, the counsel submitted that the bond could not be enforced against the petitioners for recovery of penalty imposed not on them but on Mr. Aleksandr, the Second Officer. In support, the counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), 1986 (26) ELT 35 (Bom.). 6. In Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. (supra), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his illegal acts made without the knowledge or connivance of the owner or the Master of the ship. The decision of this Court was rendered in the year 1986 and has been accepted by the Customs Authorities and has not been appealed against. Relying on that decision and believing that the bond would not be enforced against them for recovery of any penalty imposed not on them but a crew member, they executed the bond. In view of this, the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount of penalty imposed on the Second Officer Mr. Aleksandr from the petitioners on the basis of a bond. 7. In view of what is stated above, the petition succeeds. We are informed that in lieu of extension of bank guarantee the amount thereof has been deposited in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
