VAIRAVAN THANDAL Vs. APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ROOM No. 28, Broadlands Lodge, at No. 8 Vallabh agraharam, Triplicane, Madras was searched by the Inspector of Police,'d'Division, Triplicane on 1-6-1964. The two petitioners herein, along with three others, were found in the room and certain goods of foreign origin were spread out on the floor of the room and some cash also was found. The Inspector of Police seized the goods and the cash and took the persons also to the police station and made a list of the articles seized. Subsequently they were handed over to the officers of the Central Excise Department. The authorities of the Central Excise Department issued a show cause notice to the petitioners herein on the allegation that the goods found in the room were smuggled goods. The petitioners sent their reply contending that they had arrived from Malay a by steamer on 31-5-1964 after a long stay away from India and they had brought the goods in question after examination by the Customs authorities at the Nagapattinam port and after payment of duty. The Assistant collector of Central Excise, Integrated Division, No. 21. Nungambakkam High road, Madras, 34, passed an order on 17-9-1965. He released certain goods on the basis of the duty receipt produced by the petitioners and with regard to the other goods, he confiscated them and levied a fine of Rs. 2, 680 in lieu of such confiscation. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 250 on each of the petitioners. It is necessary in this context to refer to the actual finding of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. That finding is to be found in paragraph 16 of the order of the officer which is as follows :- "the facts discussed above establish that Syed ibrahim (Offender No. 1) and Vairavan Thandal (Offender No. 2) were the owners of all the goods involved in the seizure. In their replies to the show cause notice they did not furnish the details of the goods belonging to each. Syed ibrahim has reported to have cleared the goods on payment of customs duty of rs. 385 on the goods "valued at Rs. 350 plus Rs. 258 plus Rs. 335 ; and vairavan Thandal cleared" the goods on payment of Rs. 110 as duty on the goods valued at Rs. 100. The total amount of duty paid by both the persons is rs. 495 on goods valued Rs. 785. But the total value of the goods is Rs. 3, 572. 70 on which duty works out to Rs. 3, 836. 00. The goods mentioned in the recovery list are prohibited for import into India for a long time except as passenger's baggage. The nature and quantity also clearly indicate that these must have been imported as passenger's baggage in the recent past and sold by the importer. Even since February 1963 there has been a prohibition on the sale of goods brought as passenger's baggage and passed without a licence. The circumstances of the case leave only one inference, namely that the seized goods include those previously imported by someone (other than the offenders as passenger's baggage) and sold contrary to the conditions under which the import was allowed. Hence they are liable for confiscation. " * From this it will be clear that the Assistant Collector did not find that the petitioners themselves smuggled the goods in question, but they purchased the goods from somebody else who had smuggled the goods into india. For the purpose of coming to this conclusion, he relied on the fact that the petitioners had paid the Customs duty of Rs. 495 only on goods valued Rs. 3, 572. 70 and the correct duty payable on goods of such value is Rs. 3, 836.

(2.) THE Petitioners herein preferred appeals to the appellate Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras-I. That officer, by his order dated 12-9-1966, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners except to the extent that he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 250 on each of the petitioners herein. It is to quash these orders, the two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of india have been filed. I am of the view that these orders suffer from several defects and they are liable to be quashed.