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 the vessel used for transporting smuggled goods was liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether absolute confiscation should be modified by granting redemption of the vessel on payment of fine.
Issue (i): whether the vessel used for transporting smuggled goods was liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Section 115 makes a conveyance liable to confiscation when it is used as a means of transport in smuggling goods, unless the owner proves that such use was without his knowledge or connivance, or without the knowledge of the person in charge. The statements relied upon by the department were treated as evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and were held to establish that smuggled silver had been unloaded from the vessel. The statements were found to be corroborated by surrounding circumstances, including the conduct of the persons in charge and the absence of any material showing coercion.
Conclusion: the vessel was liable to confiscation.
Issue (ii): whether absolute confiscation should be modified by granting redemption of the vessel on payment of fine.
Analysis: Although confiscation was upheld, the vessel belonged to the appellant and stood hypothecated to a bank, with recovery proceedings pending. The adjudicating authority had also found that the appellant was not directly connected with the smuggling activity. In these circumstances, absolute confiscation was considered excessive, and redemption was directed with a reduced fine taking into account the deterioration in the vessel's value during detention.
Conclusion: redemption was allowed on payment of a fine of Rs. 6,00,000.
Final Conclusion: confiscation of the vessel was sustained, but the absolute confiscation was modified to permit redemption on payment of fine, so the appeals succeeded only to that limited extent.
Ratio Decidendi: a conveyance used for smuggling is liable to confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless the owner disproves knowledge or connivance, but the authority may grant redemption in lieu of absolute confiscation where the circumstances justify a lesser penalty.
TaxTMI 
