SHANTILAL MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Shanti Lal Mehta, petitioner, who carries on business at Calcutta under the name and style of Mjs. Chotalal Amulekh & Mohanlal as sole proprietor thereof. The petition is directed against the respondents, namely, the Union of India, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and the Additional Collector of Customs. The facts :

(2.) These are the facts. On 15-2-1967 the petitioner's premises at Calcutta were searched by the custom authorities. Certain items of ornaments and diamonds were seized. A list of the seized articles was prepared. In his explanation the petitioner told the customs authorities that the articles seized from him were not smuggled goods, as was believed by the customs, but were the property of the queen mother of Nepal who had given them to him for repair, remaking and polishing etc. On this explanation the Additional Collector of Customs wrote a letter to Counsel General of Nepal in India on 3-7-1967 enquiring from him whether Her Highness, the queen mother, had entrusted ornaments and diamonds in question to the petitioner. On 24-7-1967 Counsel General replied to the enquiry and said that some ornaments were given to the petitioner for repair, remaking and polishing etc. sometime in January-February, 1976 during their Majesties' visit to Calcutta. But he denied that any ornaments were given for sale by queen Mother.

(3.) As the penod of six months was going to expire on 14th August, 1967, the search having taken place on 15-2-1967, the Additional Collector on 4-8-1967 made an order extending the time for a further period of 3 months under the proviso to section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). Thus time was extended upto 14-11-1967. Thereafter the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice on 10-11-67. In the show cause notice itself he ordered the release of certain items of the seized goods. But as regards others he required the petitioner to show cause why the seized diamonds and ornaments set with diamonds as specified in the notice should not be confiscated under clause (d) of section 111 of the Act and why penal action be not taken against him under section 112 of the Act. To this show cause notice the petitioner sent a reply on 27-12-1967. He pretested against the seizure of the goods as well as the extension of time. He said :