TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (3) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordering confiscation of the vessel M.V. JAG DHIR, belonging to the appellant in Appeal No. 616/83 under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 35,000 in lieu of confiscation and also imposing on each of the appellants, a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The brief facts relating to the appeal are as under :- 4. M.V. JAG DHIR, the vessel belonging to the appellant, M/s. Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited, Bombay, arrived at Port of Visakhapatnam on 16-8-1982 from the Port of Vancouver (B.C.) via Singapore and on 17-8-1982, Customs Officers started rummaging the same and the rummaging operations resulted in the recovery of the following goods from Hatch No. 6 in the ship. (a) Recovered from a rexine bag lying over the cargo (i) Johnie Walker Red Lable Scotch Whisky.  ... 9 Qrt. Bottles (ii) Black & White Scotch Whisky  ... 4 Qrt. '' (b) Recovered from a cloth bag lying over the cargo (i) Johnie Walker Red Lable Scotch Whisky  ... 7 Qrts. (ii) White H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....panelling petty officers messoroem 1. National Panasonic Radio Cassette Recorder Model RQ 543 ADS 1 No. 19-8-1982 Recovered from underneath the main Engine bed on the star board side. Car Stereo Cassette Player with 2 band Radio Model 86260-22111 Japan 3 Nos. 2. Toyoto Car Stereo Cassette Player with 2 Band Radio Model 86260-14270 Japan 2 Nos. 3. Car Stereo Cassette Player with 2 Band Radio Model 86120-30481 Japan 2 Nos. 4. Sanyo Mini Radio Cassette Recorder with adopter model M. 1700 H 1 Nos. 5. Ladies Umbrellas 2 Nos. 6. Gents Umbrellas 2 Nos. 7. Tramontion Knife with leather cover 1 No. 8. Travel Bags (folding type) 2 Nos. 9. Imperial special long range polycor slugs of 12 gauge shot sheels 10 pkts 5 Nos. each On 20-8-1982 after a part discharge of muriate of Petash from Hatch No. 6, digging operations of the cargo were undertaken against, which resulted in the recovery of the following goods of foreign origin.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerned in the concealing, harbouring and possession of the contrabands and therefore, should have exoner- ated the appellants of the charge under section 112 of the Customs Act. (v) The appellants were not permitted to cross examine the officer who issued the show cause notice which besides being violative of the principles of natural justice has caused prejudice to the appellants. (vi) When the adjudicating authority has on the same materials exonera- ted the Chief Engineer and the Chief Officer and dropped the charges against them on the same reasoning, the appellants also should have been exonerated and the lower authority is in error to have adopted a different yardstick in evaluating the evidence against the appellants. 7.  The learned Departmental Representative repelling the contentions of the appellants submitted that the contraband goods in question were detected from different places in the vessel, such as, Hatch No. 6, Fan Room, Cabin of Crew Members, Roof panelling etc., during the rummaging operations. The goods were kept neatly packed and in the circumstances, knowledge on the part of the Master can easily be presumed. It was further urged that no know....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ef Officer have been exonerated, it is open to the adjudicating authority to find the appellants guilty under Sections 112 and 115 of the Customs Act on the materials available on record. 8.  We have carefully considered the various submissions of the appellants herein. Even though, the show cause notice proceeds with the allegation that there was collusion on the part of the Master and the other members of the crew, it does not mean that the adjudicating authority has already entertained a pre-conceived bias against the appellants. A scrutiny of the show cause notice would only indicate that what was sought to be put against the appellants was the materials collected during the investigation warranting an enquiry related to confiscation and penalty. Therefore, we reject the contention of the appellants that the show cause notice proceeds with a pre-conceived bias against the appellants. Likewise, the plea of the appellants that the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the officer who issued the show cause notice is violative of the principles of natural justice is also not. legally tenable. The materials on record clearly indicate that the investigating officer who co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ikewise, we find under Section 115(1) of the Customs Act, the various circumstances under which a vessel or a conveyance could be confiscated without any mens rea on the part of the owner or the person-in-charge of the same. No doubt, under Section 115(2), if the owner of the conveyance or the person-in-charge of the same is able to prove that the conveyance was used without his knowledge or connivance, there cannot be any confiscation, but, in the instant case, we are not satisfied that the appellants have satisfactorily established that the huge quantity of contraband goods recovered from the ship were without the knowledge of the Master. We, therefore, uphold the order of confiscation of the vessel by the adjudicating authority under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the consequent redemption fine imposed on the appellants, 10.  Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, the learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Misc. Petition Nos. 1984 and 2048 of 79 between M/s. Garware Shipping Corporation Ltd. v. J.H. Joglekar, Additional Collector of Customs (Preu....