Maritime lien for seamen's wages survives customs confiscation and remains enforceable against vessel sale proceeds.

Customs confiscation of a vessel does not, by itself, extinguish seamen's maritime lien for wages. The Supreme Court reasoned that wage protection under maritime law is a privileged claim attached to the ship and enforceable against the vessel or its substitute proceeds unless legislation expressly provides otherwise. It further held that crew wages, as protected maritime dues, may be satisfied from the sale proceeds of the vessel even where the sale followed confiscation, because the crew's lawful wage claims cannot be defeated by the State's confiscatory action. The decision reinforces the priority of seamen's wage claims and the strict construction of confiscation powers.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of a vessel under the Customs Act extinguishes the seamen's maritime lien for wages; (ii) Whether the crew were entitled to payment of wages from the sale proceeds of the vessel.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of a vessel under the Customs Act extinguishes the seamen's maritime lien for wages.

Analysis: The statutory scheme protecting seamen's wages under the Merchant Shipping Act recognized an unfettered right to wages and a right enforceable through admiralty proceedings. The Court held that the confiscatory power under the Customs Act is drastic and must be strictly construed, and it cannot be read as destroying pre-existing maritime liens unless the statute expressly says so. Maritime lien for wages arises from service rendered to the ship, attaches to the res, and follows the vessel or its substitute proceeds. Confiscation by itself cannot defeat that lien.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the vessel did not extinguish the crew's maritime lien for wages.

Issue (ii): Whether the crew were entitled to payment of wages from the sale proceeds of the vessel.

Analysis: The crew had served lawfully on the vessel and their wage claim was a protected maritime claim. The Court held that wages are a privileged claim on the ship and may be satisfied from the proceeds realised on sale of the vessel, irrespective of the reason for the sale. The crew were not responsible for the confiscation or sale and the State could not, by confiscation, deny satisfaction of lawful wage claims. The right to wages was also treated as part of the right to livelihood and dignified life.

Conclusion: The crew were entitled to full wages and related dues from the sale proceeds of the vessel.

Final Conclusion: The Court restored the seamen's priority wage claim, rejected the view that customs confiscation obliterated maritime rights, and directed payment of the crew's dues from the realised sale proceeds.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs confiscation of a vessel does not, by itself, extinguish a seamen's maritime lien for wages, and such wage claims remain enforceable against the vessel or its sale proceeds unless the statute expressly provides otherwise.

---