V VEMBU IYER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, under Arts.226 and 227, V. V. Iyer the petitioner challenges the validity of the proceedings taken and the penalty imposed on ham by the Collector of Customs of Bombay, by the order dated 29-7-1963.

(2.) The events leading to the petition are these: The petitioner was the sole proprietor of M/S. New India Corporartion, Bombay during the period ot 1953 to 1957. He was engaged in the business of importing sprayers operated either by hand or machines. The customs autiiorities proceeded against the petitioner for the offence of "Under invoicing" and unauthorised importation of the consignments. After giving opportunity to the petitioner, the Collector of Customs found the petitioner guilty of the offence under S.167, Cl. C8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 read with S.3 of the Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. An aggregate amount of Rs.3,23,800 as personal penalty was levied. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed appeals 201 to 206/64 before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. He did not pay the penalty but, pleaded his inability to pay. By a letter dt.11-6-1964, the petitioner was informed that the Board would consider all the appeals provided the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 by 3-7-1964 and produce Bank surety for the balance. Alternatively he was given the choice to deposit the full amount of penalty imposed in any one of the 5 cases and upon such deposit that case would be considered on merits keeping the remaining appeals pending. The petitioner did not choose to do so. On 17-7-1964, another letter was issued referring to the non-complianee of the concession offered to the petitioner In the matterr of depositing the penalty and further calling upon him to deposit the entire penalty before 5-8-1964 failng which it was stated that the appeals would be rejected. The petitioner did not - respond. Consequently all the appeals were rejected by the Board under S.129 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("The 1962 Act') by the order dt. 21-8-3 964. His further revision petitions to the Government of India were also dismissed Without entering into the merits. When the penalty was sought to be recovered by the revenue recovery process, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) The following two contentions in the alternative were urged for the petitioner by Mr. Srinivasan. (i) That the rejection of the appeals, without exercising the discretion under S. 129 of the 1962 Act, was illegal; and (ii) That the imposition of penalty under S.167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, was unauthorised as the said section was not attracted to the offence committed.