https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80024 Notice to the person in charge of the yacht was treated as sufficient notice to the owner, and no prejudice was shown to justify interference on natural justice grounds. The Assistant Collector was held to have jurisdiction to order confiscation because the adjudication arose from the seizure and attempted smuggling of hashish, not from the yacht's value. The proviso to section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted, as the evidence did not show carriage of goods or passengers for hire; private hire was insufficient. Absolute confiscation was therefore sustainable. en-us Wed, 26 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:55:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80024 Notice to the person in charge of the yacht was treated as sufficient notice to the owner, and no prejudice was shown to justify interference on natural justice grounds. The Assistant Collector was held to have jurisdiction to order confiscation because the adjudication arose from the seizure and attempted smuggling of hashish, not from the yacht's value. The proviso to section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was not attracted, as the evidence did not show carriage of goods or passengers for hire; private hire was insufficient. Absolute confiscation was therefore sustainable. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80024