IBRAHIM ISMAIL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :-This is a petition for issue of a Writ of Declaration that the proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, providing for giving of notice referred to in clause (a) and representation referred to in clause (b) of the said section, to be oral at the request of the person concerned is unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. THEre are two other prayers which are consequential. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail as the only question to be considered relates to the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 124 of the Customs Act. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is aggrieved by an order of confiscation and imposition of penalty passed by the Second respondent on 29-.6-.1992.

(2.) SECTION 124 of the Customs Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" is in the following terms :-"No order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made under this Chapter unless the owner of the goods or such person -(a) is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose a penalty(b) is given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty mentioned therein and(c) is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter :Provided that the notice referred to in clause (a) and the representation referred to in clause (b) may, at the request of the person concerned be Oral.'

(3.) LEARNED Counsel strenuously contends that a provision for oral notice is inherently bad and unconstitutional as according to him, oral communication is no communication at all. Reference is made to the meaning of the word 'informing' in New Webster's Dictionary. According to learned Counsel, 'informing' means 'to communicate' and any communication which is not in writing is not a communication at all. Reliance is placed on the rulings of the Supreme Court under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. In the said Article, it is provided that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made. The expression used in the Article is "communicate". That has been considered by the Supreme Court in several cases. LEARNED Counsel has referred some of them.