MOHAMMAD KHALIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed questioning the legality of the order dated 3-8-81 (Annexure V to the writ petition) under which a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed upon M/s. Tin Can Manufactures, Chaman Ganj, Kanpur under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petition has been filed by Mohammad Khalil, partner of the aforesaid firm.

(2.) FACTS in brief, giving rise to the aforesaid petition are that on 17-3-1975 Customs Officer of Kanpur searched the business premises of M/s. Tin Can Munufacturers on the basis of intelligence gathered by them and under the authority of a search warrant issued by the competent authority. This search resulted in recovery of tin plates of foreign origin weighing 6350 kgs. The tin plates so recovered before the markings showing that they were "U S.A. made". The total value of the plates according to the Customs authorites was Rs. 24,400/-. As the petitioner could not produce any evidence in support of lawful acquisition, possession and import into India of the aforesaid tin plates, the authorities under reasonable belief that the possession has been acquired in contravention of section 3 (1) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 read with clause (3) of Import Control order No. 17/55 and section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, seized the tin plates for action under section 110 (1) of the Act.

(3.) WE have heard Shri R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India Shri V. K. Singh Shri Bhalla has challenged the impugned order on the ground that in view of the order dated 6-1-1978 passed by this court no proceedings could be initiated against petitioner as the order passed by the Collector Customs dated 12-9-1975 was quashed and the tin plates seized were returned to petitioner. According to Shri Bhalla the order is binding on the respondents and as the goods seized were returned, no proceedings for confiscation in pursuance of the notice dated 7-11-1975 could be continued nor a penalty could be imposed. Shri Bhalla has placed reliance on the Division Bench view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case "The appellate Collector of Customs and Central excise, Madras v. T. N. Khamibati, 1977 CrLJ 1331, and has submitted that as the notice was given during the extended period and not within the original period of six months contemplated under section 110 (2) of the Act, which was found illegal by this court, no further proceedings could be taken against petitioner and the impugned order dated 3-8-1981 is liable to be quashed.