CHIMANLAL CHHOTALAL DESAI Vs. M G ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order dated January 31, 1958 passed by the first respondent as Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, whereby certain goods belonging to the petitioner were ordered to be confiscated under clause (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Petitioner was given an option under Section 183 of the Act to pay in lieu of such confiscation a fine of Rs. 33,000 and clear the goods for home consumption. A personal penalty of Rs. 16,000 was levied against the petitioner under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows :- The petitioner obtained a licence dated July 4, 1956 under Import Trade Control Order, 1955 dated December 7, 1955. In that licence the description of goods licensed to be imported is "parts of other office machines, i.e. Dictating machines excluding those machines included in appendix XXXV to the Policy Book for June 1956". The petitioner had also obtained licence dated June 5, 1956. In that licence the description of the goods is "other office machines, i.e. dictating machines" and also tape and wire recorders for office use". In both the licences a reference is made to "I.T.C. Schedule" and the serial number. In the first licence serial number is 65(6)(a) (iii)/V. In the second licence the serial number is 65(6) III/V. On October 25, 1957 the petitioner imported 22 cases of tape recorders of the value of Rs. 24,640. The goods had been shipped from Holland and arrived in Bombay on or about October 25, 1957.

(3.) By a show cause memo dated November 20, 1957 it was stated that the import licence produced was not valid for the reasons mentioned in clause 2 of the memo and a written explanation was invited from the petitioner and he was also notified to clearly state in the written explanation whether he wished to be heard before the case was decided by the adjudicating officer. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated November 20, 1957, and was given a personal hearing on November 21, 1957. The matter was then admittedly adjourned to enable the petitioner to produce certain further correspondence the details whereof it is not material to state. The respondent's case is that on December 12, 1957, the time for the petitioner to bring in further materials was extended up to December 27, 1957. The time was again extended by a reminder addressed to the petitioner on January 2nd 1958. The petitioner prepared a written representation to be made to the Joint Committee of the I.T.C. and Customs Authorities. That representation is dated January 11, 1958. The petitioner forwarded that representation to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, along with his letter dated January 13, 1958.