BABOO RAM HARICHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel tendered copies of various communications as well as copy of an order of final assessment of one of the Bills of Entry filed by the petitioner in compliance with the order dated 28 -3 -2011 passed by this Court. The same are taken on record.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 5.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. R. J. Oza, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 to 5 vehemently opposed the petition. Inviting attention to the Bill of Entry annexed with the affidavit -in -reply, it was submitted that the petitioner has claimed the benefit of exemption under the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) Scheme and has, accordingly, stated in the Bill of Entry that it is totally exempted from the liability to pay any duty. It was submitted that the said assertion in the Bill of Entry would amount to mis -declaration inasmuch as, the goods imported by the petitioner, viz. Beetle Nut/Areca Nut, do not fall under G -7 of SION norms.. It was accordingly submitted that any material misdeclaration on the part of the importer would render the goods liable to confiscation and can be seized under Section 110 of the Act and that the present case would be squarely covered by clauses (m) and (o) of Section 111 of the Act. It was submitted that once the proper officer has been satisfied that the conditions precedent for invoking Section 110 of the Act are satisfied, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would not interfere with the same. Reliance was placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another : 1987 (29) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) for the proposition that if prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief of the proper officer that the seized goods were liable to confiscation, the courts have to accept the officers belief whether the court of its own might or might not have entertain the same belief. Courts should not sit in appeal in regard to this question.