SHANKERLAL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions that arise for determination in both these petitions are the same and I shall therefore deal with them together.

(2.) ON 23-9-1958, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras seized 500 packets of 7 o' clock blades from No. 47, Narayana Mudali St. , George Town. Each packet contained 100 blades so that in all the total of number of blades seized was 50,000. On 29-9-1958 the Collector of Central Excise sent a notice to Shankarlal, the petitioner in W. P. No. 840 of 1958, which runs as follows: "whereas there is reason to believe that the goods mentioned in the schedule below have been imported without payment of customs duty and import trade control licence in contravention of S. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3 (2) of the Imports and Export Control Act. 1947 and you are liable to a penalty under S. 167 (8) of the Sea customs Act. You are therefore called upon to show cause before the undersigned at Madras within ten days from the date hereof why a penalty should not be imposed upon you and why the said goods should not be confiscated under the aforesaid provisions of law.

(3.) YOU should state at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person or through your legal representative in your defence by the said authority on receipt of your reply, if necessary, a time and date will be fixed and communicated to you. Schedule 7 o' clock blades (made in England)--50,000 numbers. " On 3-10-1958 counsel for the petitioner wrote to the Collector of Central Excise stating that the goods had been seized far away from the border and in circumstances which could not raise any presumption against him. He further mentioned that the onus was not on the petitioner to prove that the goods had been imported without payment of duty. He also called upon the Collector of Central Excise to state the grounds of seizure because, according to him, he was entitled to that information under S. 181 of the Sea Customs Act. (3) On 6-10-1958 the Collector of Central Excise replied that the goods had been seized under the reasonable belief that the blades had been smuggled from foreign territory without payment of duty. On 9-10-1958, counsel for the petitioner replied that the letter of the Collector did not satisfy the requirements of S. 181 of the Sea Customs Act. On 10-10-1958, the Collector of Central Excise issued a summons under S. 171-A of the Sea Customs Act to the petitioner which runs as follows: