SHA RIKHABDAS GHAGANRAJ Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that this Court may call for the records of the Collector of Central Excise in D. A. Dis. No. VIII/10/179/59 Cus. Adj. dated 26-11-1959 and quash that order.

(2.) ON 27-9-1958, the Customs authorities raided the premises of the petitioner and recovered large number of packets of 7 O'clock blades from those premises. The petitioner was asked to show cause why the goods should not be seized as having been illicitly imported into India. He produced all his accounts before the customs authorities, and, after a perusal of these accounts, 93 packets containing in all about 20,000 blades were released, the Customs authorities being apparently satisfied that the possession of that quantity was covered by valid receipts of purchases produced by the petitioner. In respect of the remaining quantity however, the petitioner's claim that he had made purchases from one S. K. Mehta of Bombay was held to be not satisfactory. The particular bill relied upon in that connection did not disclose that the commodity purchased thereunder tallied with the goods found in the possession of the petitioner. The Customs collector concluded that the seized blades are not covered by the bill produced by the party. He, therefore, proceeded to hold that as the party had failed to establish the licit origin of the goods, they should be held to have been illicitly imported into India. He accordingly confiscated the blades in question and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000 upon the petitioner under Section 167 (8) of the sea Customs Act. It may be mentioned that the petitioner sought to file an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act. But, as he did not comply with the terms of the section and deposit the penalty imposed, that appeal petition was rejected.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector of Central Excise, the facts are not denied. It is claimed, however, that the Customs authorities acted fully within the limits of their jurisdiction and there is no error of Jaw apparent on the face of the record rendering it liable to be quashed. After setting out the facts relating to the seizure, verification of the bills and other details, the counter states that since the goods were of foreign manufacture, the import of which was restricted, they could not have been imported without an import licence and in such large quantities and that the respondent was, therefore, fully justified in calling upon the petitioner to establish the licit origin of the goods, and that on his failure to so establish the origin of the goods, the Customs authorities were competent to infer that they had been illicitly imported. It is further contended that this court cannot issue a writ as the petitioner had appealed to the Central board of Revenue and the order of the Collector of Central Excise had become merged with the order of the appellate authority.