Sea Customs Act confiscation turns on mitigating circumstances, with Section 183 allowing fine in lieu of vessel confiscation.

A non-citizen company cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g), and an Article 14 challenge requires a proper factual basis and discriminatory classification. Under the Sea Customs Act, a vessel adapted for concealing goods becomes liable to confiscation once it enters Indian customs waters, but the customs authority must still consider relevant mitigating circumstances at the penalty stage, including the owner's lack of knowledge or complicity. Section 183 was read broadly enough to treat a vessel as "goods" for confiscation proceedings, so an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation could be granted in relation to the vessel.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could be challenged by a non-citizen company as being violative of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether, for confiscation and penalty under Section 167(12A) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the customs authority was bound to consider mitigating circumstances including the owner's absence of knowledge or complicity. (iii) Whether Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 permitted an option of fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of a vessel.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could be challenged by a non-citizen company as being violative of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) is available only to citizens, and the petitioner company, being incorporated outside India, could not invoke it. Article 14 applies to all persons, but no discriminatory classification or factual foundation for an Article 14 challenge was made out. The challenge based on unreasonableness under Article 19 therefore failed at the threshold.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge was rejected; the petitioner could not rely on Article 19(1)(g), and no Article 14 violation was established.

Issue (ii): Whether, for confiscation and penalty under Section 167(12A) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, the customs authority was bound to consider mitigating circumstances including the owner's absence of knowledge or complicity.

Analysis: The Court drew a distinction between commission of the offence and imposition of the penalty. Once a vessel is found to be constructed, adapted, altered or fitted for concealing goods and enters Indian customs waters, it becomes an offending or tainted vessel and the offence is complete, irrespective of the owner's knowledge. However, Section 167(12A) makes the vessel only liable to confiscation, and that liability does not compel automatic confiscation in every case. At the stage of penalty, all relevant mitigating circumstances may be considered, including the owner's lack of knowledge, absence of complicity, and practical difficulty of preventing the vessel from being tainted.

Conclusion: The customs authority erred in treating the owner's knowledge and other mitigating circumstances as irrelevant for penalty and confiscation.

Issue (iii): Whether Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 permitted an option of fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of a vessel.

Analysis: The Court held that the word "goods" in Section 183 was broad enough, in the context of confiscation proceedings, to include a vessel. Accordingly, an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation could validly be granted in relation to the vessel.

Conclusion: Section 183 was applicable, and the fine in lieu of confiscation was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was quashed to the limited extent of the vessel and the fine in lieu thereof, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law while leaving the confiscation of gold undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes a vessel liable to confiscation, the customs authority must still exercise discretion by considering all relevant mitigating circumstances before imposing the penalty, and confiscation is not automatic merely because the offence is complete.

---