Customs prohibition must be expressly operationalised; absent that, confiscation and penalties for vessel import cannot stand.

An enabling governmental measure implementing UN resolutions did not, by itself, create a customs prohibition on import; absent an express prohibition or operative notification under the Customs Act, confiscation under section 111(d) could not be sustained. The vessel's import was therefore not shown to be prohibited in force. Alleged misdeclaration also failed because the bill of entry correctly recorded the IMO number and the vessel name matched ownership documents, with no material proving wilful suppression or misstatement. As the prohibition foundation failed, the redemption fine and penalties likewise could not stand, and relief followed against confiscation and consequential penalties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the import of the designated vessel for breaking purposes so as to attract confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the allegation of misdeclaration of the vessel details before customs was sustainable and whether the penalties imposed could be upheld.

Issue (i): Whether MEA S.O. 2158(E) dated 20.06.2016 prohibited the import of the designated vessel for breaking purposes so as to attract confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The S.O. was treated as an enabling measure issued to implement the UN Security Council resolutions on Libya and to empower the Central Government to take necessary measures to prevent designated vessels from entering Indian ports. It did not, by itself, expressly create a prohibition on import, nor was any separate notification or mechanism shown to have been issued under the Customs Act, 1962 to bring such prohibition into force. The later UN resolutions also narrowed the scope of measures, and the vessel entered India without cargo for breaking purposes. On that basis, the alleged prohibition was not established.

Conclusion: The import of the vessel was not shown to be prohibited in force, and confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegation of misdeclaration of the vessel details before customs was sustainable and whether the penalties imposed could be upheld.

Analysis: The bill of entry recorded the IMO number correctly, and the vessel name matched the ownership documents available at the time of import. No sufficient material established a wilful misstatement or suppression by the appellants. Once the import was not held to be contrary to a valid prohibition, the foundation for redemption fine and penalties also failed.

Conclusion: The allegation of misdeclaration was not proved, and the penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and the appeals succeeded, resulting in relief to the appellants against confiscation and penalties.

Ratio Decidendi: An enabling governmental measure does not amount to a customs prohibition unless it expressly forbids import or is operationalised through the legally required mechanism; in the absence of such prohibition, confiscation and consequential penalties cannot be sustained.

---