TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Overturns Confiscation Order in Customs Act Case, Ruling for Owners</h1> <h3>IBRAHIM MOHAMMED EL. HAWARY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI</h3> The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order confiscating a vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, ruling in favor of the owners, ... Confiscation of vessel - Smuggling - Penalty - Smuggling of currency Issues:- Confiscation of vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act- Imposition of penalties on the master, owners, and agents of the vessel- Burden of proof on the owner regarding the use of the vessel in smuggling activities- Liability of owners, master, and agents in smuggling activitiesConfiscation of Vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act:The appeals were filed against the Commissioner's order confiscating the vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner imposed penalties and allowed redemption of the vessel on payment of a fine. The central issue was whether the vessel was used in smuggling activities with the knowledge or connivance of the owner, agent, or master. The Commissioner argued that the burden of proof lay with the owner, which was not discharged. However, during adjudication, the master provided evidence showing his efforts to prevent smuggling activities on the vessel. The Tribunal observed that the master had taken precautions, issued warnings, and was not involved in the smuggling. Consequently, the vessel was not liable for confiscation.Imposition of Penalties on Master, Owners, and Agents:The Commissioner imposed penalties on the master, owners, and agents of the vessel without substantial evidence of their involvement in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal noted that the owners, who were remotely stationed, could not be penalized for the actions of the chief officer. It was clarified that only the chief officer was involved in smuggling, not the master or owners. The penalties on the owners were set aside. Additionally, the penalties on the master and agents were deemed unjustified as they had taken reasonable precautions to prevent smuggling, such as stationing guards and issuing warnings. The Commissioner's decision to impose penalties under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act lacked reasoning and evidence, leading the Tribunal to set aside the penalties.Burden of Proof on Owner and Liability of Owners, Master, and Agents:The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proving the vessel's use in smuggling activities without the owner's knowledge rested with the owner. The Commissioner's contention that the owner failed to discharge this burden was refuted based on the master's evidence of preventive measures taken. The Tribunal concluded that the owners, master, and agents could not be held liable for penalties without concrete evidence of their involvement. The decision to penalize them lacked reasoning and justification, leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner's order.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeals, ruling in favor of the owners, master, and agents of the vessel based on the lack of evidence implicating them in the smuggling activities and the preventive measures taken by the master to avoid such incidents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
