Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Indoceanic Shipping Co. Ltd. vs Addl. Collector Of Customs (P) on 4 February, 1985
Further, I notice that in the case of Indoceanic Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Addl. CC (P), 1993 (64) ELT 196 (Bom.) has held that master of the vessel is not responsible for removal and sale of contraband goods by crew members as individuals and, therefore, the order of confiscation was set aside.
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Carl F. Peters And Capt. Jens Werner vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai on 16 March, 2001
The Tribunal in the case of CARL F. Peters v. CC (Prev.) Mumbai, 2001 (133) ELT 580 (Bom.) has also noted that there was no specific evidence of involvement in smuggling by the captain or the owner and, therefore, it was held that such order of confiscation of the vessel cannot be upheld. The finding of the Tribunal in para-4 of the order is noted herein below:
Capt. Jens Warner vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.) on 21 January, 1997
(b) Capt. Jens Warner v. CC, (Prev.) Mumbai, 1998 (99) ELT 324, wherein in similar circumstances the Tribunal had held that confiscation of the vessel under Section 115(2) was well founded.
The Finance Act, 2018
Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 13 May, 1981
Therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Shipping Co. (supra) is required to be preferred to decide the present case.
Mogul Line Limited vs Additional Collector Of Customs, ... on 14 October, 1981
"As regards M/s James Mackintosh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., it is clearly seen that they do not figure anywhere in the statements given by the staff of M/s Moonlight Chandling and the crew of M.V. Tiger Bridge and as they had come into picture only at the time of executing a bond for the vessels and in the absence of any implication by the persons who admitted to have committed the smuggling it can be concluded that he had no role in this smuggling operation. As regards the vessel M.V. Tiger Bridge, the ratio envisaged in Mogul Line Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1982 ELT 397 (Bom) does not apply as it is seen from the statements of the persons involved in this smuggling operation that they had smuggled gold on earlier occasions also. Thus is evident that the owners of the vessel have not taken sufficient precautions of desist the crew from involving in smuggling activities. It is also seen that the smuggled goods find no place in crew's effect declaration nor in any manifest declaration. Thus, I hold the vessel M.V. Tiger Bridge liable for confiscation under Section 115(2) of Customs Act, 1962 for being involved in this smuggling operation and also the owners liable for the action of their employees" (emphasis added).
1