1987 (8) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Appeal Allowed, Remand for Fresh Consideration of Personal Penalty Liability

MANSUK C. BHATT Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, GOA

MANSUK C. BHATT Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, GOA - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 230 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the vessel 'Deepak Nauka.'2. Involvement of the appellant in the smuggling of contraband goods.3. Legitimacy of the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the Vessel 'Deepak Nauka':The primary issue in this case was to determine whether the appellant, Shri Mansuk C. Bhatt, was the owner of the vessel 'Deepak Nauka.' The Customs officers had seized the vessel on suspicion of smuggling activities and imposed a penalty on the appellant based on the statements of crew members and other individuals. The appellant contended that he was not the owner, asserting that the vessel had a registration certificate and a fishing pass that would accurately identify the owner. Despite repeated requests, the Customs authorities did not produce these documents. The Tribunal noted that the statements of the crew members and other witnesses were inconsistent and lacked corroboration from documentary evidence, such as the vessel's registration certificate and fishing pass, which were crucial to establishing the true ownership.2. Involvement of the Appellant in Smuggling:The Customs authorities relied on the statements of crew members and other witnesses to establish the appellant's involvement in smuggling. The crew members had implicated the appellant, stating that he, under the alias Dinesh Kumar Kuwawala, was the owner of the vessel and had participated in the smuggling operations. However, the Tribunal found that these statements were not sufficiently corroborated by documentary evidence. The appellant argued that no concrete evidence linked him to the vessel or the smuggling activities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough investigation and verification of the vessel's registration and other relevant documents to conclusively determine the appellant's involvement.3. Legitimacy of the Penalty Imposed:The appellant was penalized Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act based on the assumption that he was the owner of the vessel involved in smuggling. The appellant's counsel argued that the penalty was unjustified as there was no substantial evidence proving the appellant's ownership or involvement in the smuggling activities. The Tribunal noted that the Customs authorities had not made adequate efforts to verify the ownership of the vessel through available documentary evidence. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, the Tribunal found that the imposition of the penalty was not justified without proper verification and investigation.Judgment:The Tribunal was divided in its opinion. One member, K.S. Dilipsinhji, upheld the penalty, asserting that the statements of the crew members and other witnesses sufficiently implicated the appellant. Another member, K. Gopal Hegde, disagreed, emphasizing the need for further investigation and verification of documentary evidence to establish the appellant's ownership and involvement conclusively. The third member, P.C. Jain, agreed with K. Gopal Hegde, leading to a majority opinion that the appeal should be allowed and the matter remanded to the Deputy Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Goa, for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed both parties to adduce fresh evidence to resolve the issues conclusively.Final Order:The appeal of Shri Mansuk C. Bhatt was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Goa, for fresh consideration of the appellant's liability to personal penalty in light of the Tribunal's observations. Both sides were granted the liberty to present new evidence before the Deputy Collector.