2009 (8) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncidental reliefs. 2. The petitioners are the agents of the said vessel which entered the Port of Bombay on 3rd February 1991. On the basis of intelligence received, on 9th February 1991 the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bombay Zonal Unit rummaged the vessel at 3, Indira Docks, Bombay and found on board contraband material, namely 25 Silver bars and 25 small white silver bars. The vessel was detained and the petitioners were called upon to furnish a bond with bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.62,00,000/for release of the vessel as per the draft of the format provided by the Directorate. The petitioners contended that they were not obliged to furnish a bond or a bank guarantee in the form furnished by the Directorate and, in any even....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the penalty by encashment of the bank guarantee given by the petitioners for release of the said vessel. The petitioners have approached this Court for injuncting the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee for recovery from them of the penalty imposed on the Second Officer and also for return of the bank guarantee duly cancelled. 3. The Collector by his order dated 15th July 1992 has held that the contraband silver bars were loaded onto the vessel by Mr. Aleksandr without the knowledge and consent of the owner or the Master of the ship. It is for this reason that the Collector did not impose a penalty of confiscation of the vessel and did not impose any fine on the owner or the Master of the ship. The Collector has further held th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ment of any fine imposed on the vessel or at the most on the owner or the Master of the ship. They were not liable to give bond for payment of any fine or penalty that might be imposed on any crew member for any illegal and clandestine act under the Customs Act. However, the bond was forcibly taken under threat of detaining the vessel and not releasing it. In the circumstances, the counsel submitted that the bond could not be enforced against the petitioners for recovery of penalty imposed not on them but on Mr. Aleksandr, the Second Officer. In support, the counsel referred to and relied upon a decision of this Court in Hongkong Island Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive), 1986 (26) ELT 35 (Bom.). 6. In Hong....