Appeal rejected, confirming confiscation order for contraband goods transport. Justified penalties upheld.

The appeal was rejected, affirming the Collector's order of confiscation and penalties. The evidence established that the vessel carried contraband goods, the appellant was involved in their transport, and the penalties imposed were justified and proportionate.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the vessel Pirani carried contraband goods during its voyage from Dubai.
2. Whether the said packages were transported to a residential premises at Mota Salaya.
3. Whether the contraband goods seized from the residential premises were the same as those brought by the vessel Pirani.
4. Whether the appellant played any part in the transport of the packages.
5. Whether the Collector was unjustified in imposing a penalty on the appellant.
6. Whether the penalty on the appellant was unreasonable, unjust, and harsh.
7. Whether the vessel was liable to confiscation.
8. Whether the fine levied in lieu of confiscation was excessive and unreasonable.

Detailed Analysis:

Points 1 to 5:
These points are inter-related and considered together.

Point 1: Contraband Goods in the Vessel Pirani
The vessel Pirani, with Eliyas Hussein as the tindel, carried 10-12 packages in addition to legitimate cargo (wet date bags) during its return voyage from Dubai. This is supported by the statements of Eliyas and other crew members under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which were not retracted or challenged.

Point 2: Transportation to Mota Salaya
The packages were transported from the vessel to Mota Salaya in two taxies. This is corroborated by statements from crew members and taxi drivers, who confirmed the movement of packages from the vessel to the residential premises.

Point 3: Identification of Seized Goods
The contraband goods seized from the residential premises were the same as those brought by the vessel. Although there were discrepancies in the number and type of packages, the overall evidence, including the presence of wet dates on some packages, supports this conclusion.

Point 4: Appellant's Involvement
The appellant played a significant role in the transport of the packages. Multiple witnesses, including crew members and taxi drivers, confirmed his involvement in arranging transportation and directing the movement of packages.

Point 5: Justification of Penalty
Given the appellant's involvement and knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods, the Collector was justified in imposing a penalty.

Points 6, 7, and 8:
Point 6: Reasonableness of Penalty
The penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant was considered just and proportionate, taking into account the value of the contraband goods and the appellant's previous conduct involving customs offenses.

Point 7: Liability of the Vessel for Confiscation
The vessel was liable for confiscation under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act. The appellant did not prove that necessary precautions were taken to prevent misuse of the vessel by the tindel or crew members.

Point 8: Excessiveness of Fine
The fine of Rs. 1,75,000/- in lieu of confiscation, which is 25% of the vessel's value, was deemed neither excessive nor unreasonable, considering the vessel's history of involvement in customs offenses.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, affirming the Collector's order of confiscation and penalties. The evidence established that the vessel carried contraband goods, the appellant was involved in their transport, and the penalties imposed were justified and proportionate.

---