Confiscation of smuggling conveyance upheld despite owner's denial of knowledge; redemption fine reduced for faulty valuation

A conveyance used in smuggling remained liable to confiscation under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 where the person in charge had admitted the offence, even though the owner denied personal knowledge. The confiscation was therefore sustained. The redemption fine was, however, reduced because the valuation basis used was found to be incorrect, the lower purchase value was supported by contemporaneous statements, and the vessel had deteriorated while under seizure. Partial relief was thus granted by reducing the fine to Rs. 32,500 while affirming confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the vessel was liable to confiscation under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 despite the owner's asserted lack of knowledge; (ii) whether the redemption fine required reduction having regard to the vessel's value and deterioration.

Issue (i): Whether the vessel was liable to confiscation under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 despite the owner's asserted lack of knowledge.

Analysis: Section 115(2) permits confiscation of a conveyance used for smuggling where the use is with the knowledge of the owner, agent, or person in charge. The person in charge of the vessel had admitted the offence, and the absence of the owner's personal knowledge did not, by itself, negate confiscability.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the vessel was sustained and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine required reduction having regard to the vessel's value and deterioration.

Analysis: The basis adopted for fixing value was found incorrect, as the higher valuation relied on was unsupported by the appellant's signature and the lower purchase value was supported by the contemporaneous statements. The vessel was also found to be deteriorating while under seizure, justifying interference with the amount of fine.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 32,500 and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the vessel was affirmed, but the redemption fine was substantially reduced, resulting in only partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A conveyance used in smuggling remains liable to confiscation under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 when the person in charge has knowledge of the smuggling, even if the owner denies such knowledge, and the quantum of redemption fine may be reduced where the valuation basis is erroneous and the conveyance has deteriorated.

---