Confiscation and penalty rejected where cars on board were found to be aboard without deliberate intent or control of the master.

Confiscation of the vessel and penalty on its agent were not justified where motor cars found on board had been surrendered to customs and the evidence supported the explanation that they were placed on the vessel by crew members during the voyage. The ship's later diversion to India and subsequent breaking arrangements showed that the cars remained on board because of itinerary changes, not any deliberate act by the master or appellant. On that factual basis, the presence of the cars at Alang was treated as beyond the master's control and insufficient to attract confiscation or penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the vessel and penalty on its agent were justified when motor cars found on board were surrendered to customs and the circumstances showed that their presence in India was not deliberate.

Analysis: The record did not contain material rebutting the explanation that the cars were brought on board by crew members during the voyage and remained on the vessel because of subsequent changes in the ship's itinerary and disposal for breaking. Documentary evidence, including the owner's message diverting the ship to India, supported the explanation. The presence of the cars at Alang was therefore held to be beyond the control of the master and not the result of any deliberate act attracting confiscation or penalty.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the vessel and imposition of penalty on the appellant were not justified.

---