Customs confiscation and penalty upheld where goods were unmanifested, the voyage was not bona fide, and no prejudice from notice defect was shown.

Goods found within customs waters were held liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(f) because they were dutiable or prohibited goods not properly manifested, and confiscation under the Customs Act did not depend on mens rea. The vessel was also liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) on the factual finding that the voyage was not bona fide, and the personal penalty on the concerned respondent under Section 112 was sustained. Absence of separate notice directly to the cargo owners did not invalidate confiscation because notice was given to the persons responsible for the contravention and no prejudice was shown; substantial compliance with Section 124 was sufficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods found on the vessel were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether the vessel MANSCO-3 was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the personal penalty on respondent No. 2 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable. (iii) Whether absence of notice directly to the cargo owners under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 invalidated the confiscation orders.

Issue (i): Whether goods found on the vessel were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods were found within the customs waters and were dutiable or prohibited goods which had not been properly manifested. The Court held that import for the purposes of confiscation is complete once goods cross the customs frontier, and that mens rea is irrelevant for confiscation under Section 111. It further held that non-filing of the import manifest within the prescribed time and failure to mention the goods in the manifest attracted Section 111(f), while the lack of a valid import licence and the contravention of the import control regime attracted Section 111(d).

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and Section 111(f).

Issue (ii): Whether the vessel MANSCO-3 was liable to confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the personal penalty on respondent No. 2 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: The Court held that the concurrent factual finding that the voyage to Bombay was not bona fide could not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, since the High Court had reappreciated evidence as if in appeal. On the confiscation of the vessel, the same factual foundation sustained liability under Section 115(2). As to the penalty on respondent No. 2, the Tribunal's finding that he was concerned with and aware of the voyage was not shown to be infirm, and the penalty was therefore upheld.

Conclusion: The vessel was liable to confiscation and the personal penalty on respondent No. 2 was valid.

Issue (iii): Whether absence of notice directly to the cargo owners under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 invalidated the confiscation orders.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 124 embodies natural justice, but failure to issue notice to the cargo owners did not vitiate confiscation where notice had been given to the persons responsible for the contravention, namely the vessel owners, master and local agents, who were best placed to explain the conduct. The Court also held that no prejudice was shown to the cargo owners and that substantial compliance with Section 124 was sufficient in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The confiscation orders were not invalidated for want of separate notice to the cargo owners.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference was set aside, the factual findings of the Collector and the Tribunal were restored, and the confiscation of the goods and vessel together with the personal penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act, confiscation of goods is an action in rem for which mens rea is not required, and a writ court cannot reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent factual findings unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence; notice under Section 124 is not fatal where there is substantial compliance and no prejudice is shown.

---