1985 (12) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Officers of the Preventive Collectorate boarded the ship 'MANSCO-3' in the inner harbour. They asked the Captain to produce crew list, crew property list, store list and the Import General Manifest. The Captain was not in a position to produce the list. The Captain or the agent of the ship had not taken any steps to file the arrival report or the IGM. The Rummaging Officers came to know that the Chief Officer and the Chief Engineer of the ship had left the vessel in a fishing craft without completing Customs, health and immigration formalities. On inspection of the holds of the vessel, the Rummaging Officers found a large number of white cloth wrapped packages bearing the markings 'STAR DUBAI', 'PRICE DUBAI' etc. Below the white cloth cove....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....file the IGM in respect of the cargo carried on board the said vessel MANSCO-3 as they were required to do in terms of Sec. 30 of the Customs Act read with Sec. 148 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus it is seen that because of the failure of the appellant to file the IGM, the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. In the order of the Collector it is nowhere stated that any act or omission of the appellant rendered the goods liable to confiscation. There is also no clear finding that the appellant was in any way concerned with the smuggling activities. There is no finding that there was any nexus between the appellant and the offended goods. 6. Shri Anjaria appearing for the appellant submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-3' as early as on 16.8.1983, but no steps were taken to file the IGM. Therefore, there was omission on the part of the appellant and in the circumstances the penalty can be imposed on the appellant under Sec. 148 of the Customs Act. 8.  I have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. As has been pointed out earlier, the Collector did not record a finding that any act or omission of the appellant rendered the goods liable for confiscation. He also did not record a finding that the appellant had in any manner dealt with the offending goods or in any way concerned with the offending goods. The nexus between the offended goods and the appellant had not been established. There is considerable force in the contention of Shr....