NARENDRA T KOTHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions are required to be summarily dismissed as the petitioner has indulged in fraudulent actions. The conduct of the petitioner in relying upon forged documents would be evident from the facts to be stated hereinafter.

(2.) The petitioner is holder of advance licence which was valid from May 1987 till November 30,1988. In pursuance of this licence the petitioner imported a consignment of Mulberry Raw Silk from Hong Kong and filed Bill of Entry dated January 31, 1989 for duty free clearance. The Bill of Lading is No. 3833353 dated November 30,1988. The import licence expired on November 30,1988 and Bill of Lading is of the same date, and therefore the Customs Authorities had a doubt about the actual date of shipment.

(3.) The Customs Authorities thereupon issued show cause notice to the petitioner to explain why the goods should not be confiscated and penal action should not be taken against the petitioner for producing forged documents. The petitioner denied any knowledge of Bill of lading being antedated, and claimed that the petitioner's shippers might have delivered the goods on or before November 30,1988 and obtained the Bill of Lading. The Additional Collector of Customs rejected the claim, which was obviously frivolous, and directed confiscation of the goods in accordance with powers under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The Assistant Collector gave an option to the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and clear the goods. The Assistant Collector also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. In the meanwhile the Port Trust issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the goods should not be sold in auction as the demurrage charges of the Port Trust were not paid. The petitioner thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 1776 of 1990 for setting aside the order of confiscation of goods and for clearance of goods from the Customs Authorities. The petitioner also claimed that the Port Trust authorities should be restrained from auctioning the goods.