SCHOOL VIEW STORES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, to set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 20-3-1957 and the appellate order of the Collector of Customs dated 27-5-1957, confirming the order of the Assistant Collector.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm, which carries on trade in consumer goods among others in its shop, 'School View Stores". On 23-10-1956 the officers of the Customs Department searched the shop as well as the house occupied by Cassim, one of the partners, and seized a number of articles on suspicion, that these goods had been smuggled into the country contrary to the regulations in force. After an investigation, notice was served on the petitioner to show cause why the goods listed in that notice should not be confiscated as smuggled goods. After an enquiry the Assistant Collector recorded :- 'In reply to the show cause memo issued to him Mr. Cassim stated that the goods in his possession which were normally available through trade channels should be presumed to be legally acquired by him. THE explanation of Mr. Cassim is not satisfactory and therefore cannot be accepted'. THE Assistant Collector ordered :- 'I confiscate the articles mentioned below under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, but option is given in lieu of confiscation under Section 183ibidto redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 334, duty and other charges leviable thereon within a period of four months or within such extended period as may be allowed on good cause being shown'. It should be useful to set out the list of articles eventually ordered to be confiscated :

(3.) IT was to these factors that the Collector referred in his appellate order. The Collector stated : 'As regards the articles confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs the department has established that the covering documents produced by the appellant do not relate to the articles. For this purpose references given by the appellant have been fully verified by the Customs House and established as not connected with the articles which were therefore confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs'. 'As regards the appellant's contention that the onus of proof lies on the Department, the correct position is that if from the surrounding circumstances there is sufficient ground for presuming that the goods have been illegally imported, it is not necessary for the Customs House to positively establish that the goods are smuggled, and the onus of proof shifts to the other side. I find that this is what has happened in this case. The licensing policy for these articles had been very strict. Moreover the bills or cash vouchers on which the appellant relied turned out to be unconnected with the goods seized. This point has further been established by the evidence available from the alleged suppliers of these goods. The appellants have not established licit importation of the goods'.