Customs confiscation and redemption rights: concealment proof is required for goods, and hire-carriage vessels need a redemption option.

Confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act requires proof that the goods were actually used to conceal smuggled goods; on the stated facts, the wet dates were not shown to have concealed the contraband, so their confiscation was unsustainable. Under Section 115(2), a conveyance used for carriage of goods for hire cannot be absolutely confiscated without the statutory option to redeem it on payment of fine; the vessel was therefore treated as redeemable, with the fine ordinarily linked to its market value. The note also records that the separate bank claim was rejected as not maintainable before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the consignment of wet dates under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable; (ii) Whether the absolute confiscation of the vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was lawful and whether an option to redeem the vessel on payment of fine was required.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the consignment of wet dates under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable.

Analysis: Section 119 permits confiscation only where goods are used for concealing smuggled goods. The finding that the wet dates were so used had to rest on evidence showing the manner and place of concealment. The record did not establish that the dates were used to conceal the contraband. The contraband watches and watch straps were recovered from secret cavities, while the recovery of other foreign-origin goods was not shown to have been from beneath the dates. The evidence also indicated that the dates were to be unloaded at Jamnagar, which negatived the inference that they were meant to conceal the smuggled goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the wet dates was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the absolute confiscation of the vessel under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was lawful and whether an option to redeem the vessel on payment of fine was required.

Analysis: Section 115(2) authorises confiscation of a conveyance used in smuggling, but the proviso mandates an option in lieu of confiscation where the conveyance is used for carriage of goods for hire. The vessel was found to have carried commercial cargo on hire, and the mere presence of smuggled goods did not justify denial of the statutory option. The fine in lieu of confiscation should ordinarily not exceed the market value of the vessel, and in the absence of reliable evidence of market value, the independent survey valuation was accepted.

Conclusion: The absolute confiscation of the vessel was illegal, and the owner was entitled to redeem the vessel on payment of fine.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation of the wet dates was quashed and the vessel was directed to be released on payment of fine, while the separate claim of the bank was rejected as not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under Section 119 requires proof that the goods were actually used to conceal smuggled goods, and under Section 115(2) a conveyance used for carriage of goods for hire cannot be absolutely confiscated without giving the statutory option to redeem it on payment of fine.

---