Customs duty on vessel bunkers upheld, but vessel confiscation failed for want of notice to owners.

A person who files bills of entry and holds out as importer of a vessel can be fastened with customs duty on bunkers, stores and later received diesel found on board and used in the marine spread, where the duty position was not regularised. Confiscation of the vessels, however, cannot be sustained without notice to the owners, who were distinct from the charterer and importer, so that confiscation was set aside with consequential relief. Confiscation and redemption fine on the bunkers, lubricants, paints and grease were upheld, and penalties were broadly sustained against the principal commercial actors, while relief was granted where direct involvement was not adequately established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the importer who filed the bills of entry for the vessels was liable for customs duty on bunkers, stores and subsequently received diesel found on board and used in the marine spread; (ii) Whether confiscation of the vessels could be sustained despite no notice to the owners; (iii) Whether confiscation and redemption fine on the bunkers, lubricants, paints and grease were sustainable; (iv) Whether the penalties imposed on the main appellants and on the agents were justified.

Issue (i): Whether the importer who filed the bills of entry for the vessels was liable for customs duty on bunkers, stores and subsequently received diesel found on board and used in the marine spread.

Analysis: Once the vessels were filed as imported goods and duty was discharged, the stores and bunkers on board could not continue to enjoy the benefit available to foreign-going vessels. The person who held himself out as importer of the vessels was treated as the receiver of the goods for customs purposes, and the contractual arrangement, the contemporaneous declarations, the supervision of receipt and the conduct of the parties all showed awareness of the duty obligation. The later receipt and use of diesel without a bill of entry or duty payment was also found to be within the knowledge and control of the same commercial arrangement.

Conclusion: Liability to pay duty on the bunkers, stores and the diesel was correctly fastened on the importer, and the demand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation of the vessels could be sustained despite no notice to the owners.

Analysis: Confiscation of a vessel requires compliance with the notice requirement to the owner. The record showed that the owners of the vessels were distinct from the charterer and importer, and they were not issued the requisite notice. In the absence of notice to the owners, confiscation could not be sustained under the confiscation scheme applicable to vessels.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the vessels was set aside, with consequential relief.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation and redemption fine on the bunkers, lubricants, paints and grease were sustainable.

Analysis: The goods were found on board after the vessels were treated as imported and after the duty position had not been regularised in accordance with law. Since the duty liability on the underlying bunker and store items was upheld, the consequential confiscation of the specified goods was also sustained. The redemption fine was considered proportionate to the value and facts of the case.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the goods and the redemption fine were upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether the penalties imposed on the main appellants and on the agents were justified.

Analysis: Penalty on the main importer was sustained because the failure to declare and pay duty on the bunker and diesel items amounted to suppression and misdeclaration. The penalty on the charterer was also sustained as it permitted use and diversion of the duty-unpaid diesel. The penalty on the sub-agent was reduced, the penalty on the clearing agent was set aside for want of direct involvement, and the penalties on employees were set aside in the absence of a sufficiently established personal role warranting punishment.

Conclusion: The principal penalties were upheld in substantial part, but the penalties against some agents and all employee-appellants were reduced or set aside.

Final Conclusion: The decision sustains the customs duty demands and the core penal consequences against the principal commercial actors, but it removes vessel confiscation for want of notice to the owners and grants selective relief on certain penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who files bills of entry and holds himself out as importer of a vessel can be fastened with duty liability on bunker and store items on board, but confiscation of a vessel cannot stand unless the owner is put to notice in accordance with the statute.

---