ORDER
S.S Sekhon, Member (T)
1. When the matter was called today, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Heard DR and considered the matter of the assessee since 1996.
2 (a) It is found that the appellants are the owner of the vessel Baba Abbas which came from Gulf Port East at Darukhana, Mumbai. On 11/02/96, the officers boarded the vessels and found two Motor Engines and other goods of foreign origin which were not declared by the master of the vessel. Subsequent enquiries made revealed and the fact that these goods were found secreted seen under the Waste Paper Cargo which was manifested. Farther enquiries made revealed that before the said vessel reached Darukhana. Thereafter pursuant to an arrangement, certain quantities of Textiles etc were unloaded during the night hours of 10th / 11th February 1996. These textiles of foreign origin and other goods not manifested and removed alleged to be smuggled into Mumbai. The said Textiles & other goods surreptiously unloaded were later on seized from the residences of from one Parvez Kasim Ali and Suleman Vali Mohammed were valued at Rs. 4,28,7507- and Rs. 2,65,230/-.
b) The appellant as owner of the vessel and the master of the vessel and others were issued a show cause notice. Commissioner found that the present appellant have not cared to give a written reply to the show cause notice. He adjudicated the matter. The vessel was held liable to confiscation and was to be redeem of the payment of fine of 10 lakhs. Since it was released on Board and Bank Guarantee, the redemption fine was the ordered to be recorded in terms of the Bond executed. The present appellant was also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh under the provision of Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act 1962 having been found concerned that the goods which were smuggled into India valued at Rs. 14,95,460/- in all.
2. The appellants contention that the order has been passed ex-partee cannot be accepted since the Commissioner has found that the appellant has not even cared to reply to the show cause notice issued to him and no evidence contray to the same produced that the appellant has sent a reply to the show cause notice requesting for a personal hearing. The appellant cannot be now complaining that the order has been passed ex-partee.
3. As regards the order to confiscate the vessel, we cannot find any reason to exonerate the owner. No material has been brought on record of the precautions the owner has taken to avoid his vessel being used as a conveyance to smuggle goods. The vessel was under the command and control of his own brother the master of the vessel and liability of the vessel has having been indulging in smuggling has been correctly arrived. We find no reason to interferer with the result as arrived. Case in these appeal has been made out as regards reduction of the fine on redemption of confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. As regards penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed, considering that the entire smuggling operation of Rs. 14,95,460/- took place only because of the owner of the vessel in having allowing the use of his vessel, he is liable to penalty. Penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh as imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act is therefore upheld.
5. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in Court)