F M POTIA Vs. DILIPSINGJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing and setting aside of the order dated April 7, 1958 made by the Assistant Collector of Customs as also the appellate order dated September 28, 1959 whereby the Additional Collector of Customs, being the 2nd Respondent, confirmed the order dated April 7, 1958.

(2.) The relevant facts are to be gathered not only from the pleadings but also from the annexures to the pleadings. The Petitioners who are timber merchants purchased dunnage wood from 's.s. Steel Traveller' and 's.s. Hoegh Silverbeam' in the beginning of January, 1953. Though in the petition it is mentioned that these steam-ships were mid-stream and the delivery was taken mid-stream it is now admitted that the steamships were at all material times berthed at Alexandra Docks. The Petitioners were desirous of carrying the purchased goods after discharge of the goods from these steamships by their own cargo boat bearing No. 5413 to Tank Bunder for clearing the same for home consumption. It was necessary for the Petitioners in this connection under Section 76 of the Sea customs Act, to obtain a "boat note". Under the section the boat note is compulsorily required to contain particulars of the goods discharged and waterborne by the boat and to be signed by officer of vessel wherefrom the goods are discharged. Upon arrival of the boat the "boat note" is directed to be delivered to a customs officers authorized to receive the same. On January 3, 1953, the Petitioners applied for two boat notes for carrying the goods of each of the steamships to Tank Bunder. The Customs Officer B. Shankar was in charge of issuing of boat notes and issued one boat note in connection with the goods to be discharged from 's.s. Hoegh Silverbeam'. He informed Shantilal of the petitioners that the printed boat notes were exhausted and he then had none with him to issue in connection with the goods to be discharged from 's.s. Steel Traveller'. The Petitioners on the same day took delivery of the purchased goods both form 's.s. Steel Traveller' and 's.s. Hoegh Silverbeam' and carried the goods by their own cargo boat to Tank Bunder. The goods were however, not unloaded till January 5, 1953. The Petitioner's case is that the unloading of the goods had commenced on Monday, January 5, 1953 at about 9 a.m. in respect of the goods taken delivery of them 's.s. Hoegh Silverbeam'. At about 9.30 a.m. another boat note in respect of the goods of 's.s. Steel Traveller' was also obtained from Customs Officer B. Shankar. The other goods were thereafter unloaded on the wharf and carried to the yard maintained by the Customs authorities in connection with clearance for home consumption and assessment of import duty.

(3.) In connection with the goods purchased by the Petitioners and unloaded at Tank Bunder, having received certain information, one Nanak Sing, an Assistant Collector of Customs informed the Petitioners at about 11 a.m. on January 5, 1953 that part of these goods had been carried away by the petitioners to a yard owned by them and stocked there so as to avoid payment of import duty in respect of such goods. The case of the Petitioners throughout was and is that they had in all unloaded at Tank Bunder ten lorry loads of dunnage wood and the aggregate quantity of wood unloaded was about 43 tons only. The charge of the department against the Petitioners was that they hand unloaded 13 lorry loads and 3 lorry loads of the weight of about 22.69 tons had been carried away directly by the petitioners to their own yard and that payment of duty in respect of this part of purchased goods had been evaded by the petitioners. The further charge against the petitioners was that they had carried goods taken delivery from 's.s. Steel Traveller' to Tank Bunder without having obtained a boat note, and without all the particulars duly recorded in such a boat note.