Declared ship stores cannot be confiscated on mere ownership conjecture without a substantive customs violation.

Beer declared in the ship's stores list and supported by import documentation was not liable to confiscation under the Customs Act merely because ownership was uncertain between the ship and crew members. A technical irregularity or conjecture about ownership did not amount to a substantive statutory breach attracting confiscation. As no demonstrated violation of the declaration requirement or other enforceable contravention was shown, consequential penalty was also unsustainable. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether beer declared as bonded ship stores was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and whether penalty could be imposed on the appellants.

Analysis: The goods had been declared in the ship's stores list and the import documentation was on record. Mere uncertainty about whether the beer belonged to the ship or to crew members did not, by itself, establish a violation attracting confiscation. The finding that the goods were not clearly ship property or crew property could at most indicate a technical irregularity, but not a substantive contravention of the provisions relied upon for confiscation. In the absence of a demonstrated breach of the declaration requirement or other substantive infringement, confiscation and consequential penalty were not sustainable.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation and the penalty could not be sustained; the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods have been duly declared in the ship's manifest or stores list, confiscation cannot rest merely on conjecture as to ownership or on a technical irregularity unless a substantive statutory violation attracting confiscation is established.

---