TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether absolute confiscation of the yacht was vitiated for want of notice and opportunity to the owner; (ii) whether the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to order confiscation; (iii) whether the yacht was used for carriage of goods or passengers for hire so as to attract the proviso to section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): whether absolute confiscation of the yacht was vitiated for want of notice and opportunity to the owner.
Analysis: The proceedings were based on seizure of hashish concealed in the yacht, and the person in charge was acting as the owner's agent. Notice to the agent was treated as sufficient notice to the owner. The record did not support any prejudice to the owner warranting interference on the ground of natural justice.
Conclusion: The confiscation was not invalid for want of notice to the owner.
Issue (ii): whether the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to order confiscation.
Analysis: The confiscation proceedings were founded on the seizure and attempted smuggling of hashish, whose value was within the adjudicatory competence referred to by the Tribunal. The mere fact that the yacht itself was of high value did not deprive the authority of jurisdiction where the adjudication turned on the smuggled goods and the offence committed in relation to them.
Conclusion: The Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to proceed and order confiscation.
Issue (iii): whether the yacht was used for carriage of goods or passengers for hire so as to attract the proviso to section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The evidence did not show that the yacht was being used for carriage of goods or passengers for hire. The captain's statement instead indicated private hire of the yacht without supporting proof of commercial carriage. In the absence of evidence bringing the conveyance within the proviso, the option to redeem in lieu of confiscation did not arise.
Conclusion: The proviso to section 115(2) was not attracted and absolute confiscation was sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The order of absolute confiscation was upheld and no interference was called for.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a conveyance is used to conceal and transport smuggled narcotics, and there is no proof that it was employed for carriage of goods or passengers for hire, the proviso to section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply and absolute confiscation is permissible; notice to the agent in charge suffices as notice to the owner in the absence of separate prejudice.
TaxTMI 
