A M CADEN Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High court dated 12-11-1969 and made herein relating to the order in O. S. 375/67 RD dated 14-8-1969 on the file of the Respondent herein comprised in the return of the Respondent herein to the writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. E. S. Govindan, Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam for the Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent the Court made the following order :- THIS petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution for the issue of a Writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the respondent, the Collector of Customs, Madras, dated 14-9-1969, under which a penalty of Rs. 5, 000 was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the customs Act, 1962 hereafter referred to as the Act.

(2.) ON 17-10-1967, two passengers, Kumar Pathar and Mohamed mustafa, were interrogated with regard to certain packages which they had brought from Penang by s. s. State of Madras. Kumar Pathar stated that he carried the goods on behalf of Mohamed Mustafa. Mohamed Mustafa stated that the goods which were cleared on 15-10-1967 were handed over to the petitioner on the instructions of one Mariam Beevi, said to be the mother-in-law of the petitioner. Thereupon, the customs officers searched the premises of the petitioner on 17-10-1967. At the time, the petitioner was absent, but his wife was present. The petitioner's wife produced jewellery weighing 525 Gms. approximately and other articles, which were said to have been delivered the previous day by Mustafa. At the time of the search officers recovered from the cupboard a list said to have been given by Mariam beevi at Penang to Mustafa to be handed over to the petitioner. The goods were found to be liable to duty, but had been cleared without payment of duty. The petitioner appeared before the Customs Officer on 31-10-1967 and stated that mustafa requested him to keep the articles for safe custody and that he had nothing else to do with the ownership of the goods and further stated that the goods were not sent to him by his mother-in-law. He also controverted the statement of Mustafa that he, the petitioner, had given Rs. 3, 500 for payment of duty. He, however, identified the list seized from his house as the one left in his residence by Mustafa along with the articles.