KARIM BABASAHEB FAKIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which falls for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution is whether the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, was justified in rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner for non-appliance with the provisions of Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not necessary to deal with the facts in great detail as the issue involved is a very narrow one. On receipt of certain secret information, the Inspector of customs. Harnai, intercepted a launch carrying foreign goods and anchored near Dabhol in ratnagiri District. On entering the launch, the Inspector found 27 packages of T. V. sets, 10 packages of playing cards and five packages of fabric. The vessel 'hirasagar' was towed to harnai Port and the goods and the launch were seized on reasonable belief that the goods were of smuggled origin. Statements of Trindle as well as crew members were recorded and after investigation, show-cause notice for confiscation and Impositions of penalty under Section 112 was served on 22 persons, including the petitioner. The petitioner was not arrested on the vessel but was involved in pursuance of statement made by one Govind Gonji on August 12, 1973. Govind incidently was the Trindle of the ship.

(2.) AFTER service of show-cause notice, the Collector of Central Excise, Pune passed order dated june 8, 1977 confiscating the goods seized as well as the vessel. The Collector imposed personal penalty under Section 112 (b) of the Customs Act on the petitioner and the penalty was of Rs. 10,000/ -. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, preferred appeal before the Central Board of Excise and customs, New Delhi, and made an application for dispensing with the deposit of amount of penalty. The application was turned down and as the payment was not made, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 of the Customs act. The order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs is under challenge.

(3.) MR. Rege, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the application for dispensing with the deposit was disposed of without giving personal hearing to the petitioner. We are not impressed by the submission. The petitioner had filed a detailed application claiming that the deposit should be dispensed with as he is required to maintain about 30 persons and is not in a position to make such deposit. The Board noticed that the petitioner had share in a liquor shop and the petitioner is also an income-tax payee and owns lands and buildings collectively valued at Rs. 50,000/ -. Taking all factors into consideration, in our judgment, the order passed by the Board cannot be faulted or disturbed on the ground that personal hearing was not given to the petitioner. Mr. Rege then submitted that some reasonable time should be granted to the petitioner to make the deposit and on such deposit, the appeal should be heard. In our judgment, time of four weeks from today can be granted to the petitioner for depositing the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/- before the Collector of Central Excise, Pune and on such deposit the appeal preferred by the petitioner could be restored to file and disposed of by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'cegat' ).