TMI Blog1978 (8) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of Calcutta. 2.As usual the vessel was carrying bonded stores in charge of Peter Sherazee, who at the material time was the purser of the Vessel. Peter Sherazee, had also sailed as purser of the vessel in her two previous voyages. 3.According to the Bonded Stores list which the purser had handed over to the Customs Officer when the vessel arrived at Calcutta, there was a quantity of 1,22,400 pieces of cigarettes in store packed, inter alia, in un-opened large cartons of 5,000 cigarettes each, bound by iron strips. There were also smaller cartons and open cartons. 4.On checking by the Customs the un-opened larged cartons appeared to be intact. 5.Under the Customs Rules and Regulations, cigarettes, tobacco, and alcoholic liquor kept in the ships' stores in foreign going vessel are sealed in the vessel's bond-room while in port and cannot be taken out of bond without the permission of the appropriate customs officer and are so taken out only in the latter's presence. 6.Accordingly, after checking the Customs Officer locked up and sealed the bond-room of the vessel. 7.On two occasions thereafter, namely, on the 17th and the 16th October, 1974, Peter Sherazee took out s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliberately inflated the number of the cigarettes in the books for certain reasons. 15.The vessel left the port of Calcutta on a foreign voyage on or about the 11th November, 1974, after the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 with the Customs Authorities as security for any fine or penalty which might be imposed in respect of the alleged shortage. 16.On the 9th April, 1975, the Assistant Collector of Customs for Preventive (Adjudication), Calcutta, issued a notice to the petitioner alleging inter alia, that 45,000 cigarettes were found short in the bond-room of the said vessel on the 4th November, 1974, and that no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the respondent of the alleged shortage. The notice said that it was reasonably believed that the said cigarettes had been removed clandestinely from the vessel while she was in port. It was contended that the vessel was liable to be confiscated under Section 115(1)(e) of the Customs Act, 1962 which runs thus :- "Section 115, Confiscation of conveyance. - (1) The following conveyance shall be liable to confiscation - any(e) conveyance carrying imported goods which has entered India and is afterward found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not attracted. 20.It is on record that the imported goods scheduled to be unloaded at Calcutta consisted, inter alia, of 847 tonnes irons and steel, 200 tonnes of carbon block plates, 6 tonnes of milk powder, 976 tonnes of machinery, spare parts, equipments and other general cargo. The respondent's contention was that compared to the cargo to be unloaded the missing goods, namely 45,000 cigarettes were inconsequential and insignificant. 21.The Additional Collector of Customs has repelled this contention. He has held as follows :- "It has not been defined as to what `substantial portion' would refer to. In the case of a vessel the value of her whole cargo and other imported goods carried thereon could be enormous. If a Master of the Vessel clandestinely disposes of say goods over Rs. 10 lacks even then it can be argued by calculating the percentage that the loss deficiency is `inconsequential' in terms of percentage with reference to the total value of the missing goods. However, nobody can say that such deficiency is inconsequential. In my opinion the word `substantial portion' does not necessarily refer to the ratio between the value of the missing goods and total value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substantial portion" of the collective unit is missing then also Section 115(l)(e) would be attracted; but if one of the items of the collective unit is missing or a substantial portion of that item is missing, the vessel itself cannot be confiscated. Any other construction, Mr. Roy Mukherjee contends, of Section 115(l)(e) would give a harsh treatment to the literal meaning of the words used in the Statute. He has relied on Craies on "Statute Law" and Maxwell on the "Interpretation of Statutes" in support of his contention that when the plain meaning is clear the spirit of the Act is irrelevant and the literal meaning is to be adhere to disregarding the consequences. 25.We asked him what precisely he meant by `collective unit'. Is `collective unit' to be adjudged with reference to value or with reference to the quantity of imported goods? We said to him that supposing by a vessel 100 tonnes of wheat and 4 gold bars had been imported. And of these 4 gold bars, 3 were missing in such a case, would the Customs Officer, in construing Section 115(1)(e) say that the three gold bars compared to the total quantity of goods imported are inconsequential and therefore, the vessel cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dified to give effect to the legislature's intention. Anyone who contends that a section of an Act of Parliament is not to be read literally must be able to show one or two things - either that there is some other section which cuts down its meaning, or else that the section itself if read literally is repugnant to the general purview of the Act, vide Craies on Statute Law, 3rd Edn. Page 84. 29.In Maxwell on the "Interpretation of Statute" 8th Edition at page 20 it is stated : "The true meaning of any passage it is said is to be found not merely in the words of that passage, but in comparing it with other parts of the law, ascertaining also what were the circumstances with reference to which the words were used and what was the object appearing from those circumstances which the legislature had in view. Every clause of a Statute should be construed with reference to the context and the other clauses of the Act, so as, so far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of the whole Statute or series of Statutes relating to the subject matter." 30.The principles of construction referred to above appear to be relevant in the instant case. If we accept Mr. Roy Mukherjee's conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lature has even provided for confiscation of the conveyance itself. In these premises if we say that the words `substantial portion' of imported goods in Section 115(1)(e) have to be read in the context of the totality of goods imported, the very object of the Act embedded in Section 11(2)(c) may be frustrated. Let us repeat the example we gave to Mr. Roy Mukherjee. A vessel may have imported 100 tonnes of wheat and gold 4 bars out of which 3 bars have been smuggled out. The owner of the vessel, if we go by quantity of imported goods, cannot be punished by confiscation of the vessel itself even though smuggling of 3 gold bars has taken place. We do not think that this was or could have been the intention of the legislature. In our opinion if a vessel has imported different items or varieties of goods and if either the whole or substantial portion of one of the items or varieties be found missing, the Customs Authorities would be entitled to invoke Section 115(1)(e). If we do not adopt this interpretation we shall not be giving effect to the object the legislature had in view, namely, the prevention of smuggling. 34.It was argued before us that confiscation of vessel is an extreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
