ALBIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Managing Partner of a firm of exporters of frozen shrimps (hereinafter referred to as 'exporters'). Ext. PI notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Cochin (4th respondent) calling upon the exporters to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against them for contravention of the Notification (No. SO. 771 dated 6 3 1965 (as amended)) issued under S.6 of the Export (Quality Control & Inspection) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Quality Control Act'), why their goods should not be confiscated under S.113(d) and 118(b) of the Customs Act 1962; and why penalty under S.114 of the Customs Act should not be imposed upon them. Ext. P2 reply was sent by the exporters; but their explanation was rejected by Ext. P3 order of the Collector of Customs (the 3rd respondent herein). The Collector held that the prohibition contained in the notification issued under S.6 of the Quality Control Act was violated and that the goods were therefore liable to be confiscated. He however gave the exporters an option to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- in lieu of confiscation. The Collector further imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the exporters under S.114 of the Customs Act. Against this order an appeal was filed before the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board by Ext. P6 order confirmed the confiscation, but reduced the penalty from Rs. 20000/- to Rs. 10000/-. A revision filed before the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), was dismissed by Ext. P8 order. The petitioner challenges Exts. P1, P3, P6 and P8.

(2.) Certain facts are not controverted. The goods in question were brought to the Customs wharf under a valid certificate issued by the Export Promotion Agency (hereafter called the 'Agency'; which is the competent authority under the Quality Control Act. There is no case that the certificate was issued on any misrepresentation or that any fraud had been committed by the exporters. There is also no case that the exporters made any wrong declaration or that they knowingly brought damaged goods to the Customs wharf.

(3.) At the wharf the Customs authorities noticed defect in the goods. The Agency was therefore called upon to conduct a fresh examination. The Agency found that the goods were not exportworthy. It was on the basis of such finding that the Customs authorities issued Ext. P1 notice.