UNION OF INDIA Vs. SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order in Writ Petition No. 85 of 1987 by which the order of the collector being order dated 15th September 1986 confiscating the goods mentioned therein was quashed, the appellants were directed to hand over four consignments to the 1st respondent for reshipment to him at Hongkong and to issue detention certificate to the 1st respondent for the period the goods were rendering the 1st respondent liable to pay demurrage to the Bombay Port trust.

(2.) THE 1st respondent, an Indian national, resident abroad (INRA) was doing business at hongkong in the name and style of 'unisilk' and the 2nd respondent was doing business at delhi in the name of 'acquarius' and was holding an Advanced import Licence bearing No. P/l/3084211/c/xx/95/d/85 for import of Mulberry Raw Silk. Prior to importation of the goods covered by the four consignments in question, the 2nd respondent had imported three consignments against the said Advance Licence and had misused the same in violation of the tears pertaining to importation thereof. Between November 22, 1985 and January 22, 1986, the four consignments in question arrived at the Port of Bombay. The documents in respect of these consignments were made deliverable 'at sight' and were sent to the 1st respondent's bankers who had instructions to deliver the same to the 2nd respondent against payment at the counter. Before delivery of the said four consignments could be taken by the 2nd respondent, the appellants came to know about the misuse by the 2nd respondent of the goods covered by the said earlier three consignments and as such, the said four consignments in question were seized under the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ). A show cause notice dated May 12, 1986 was issued to the 2nd respondent and others calling upon them for their explanation as to why the goods covered by the said four consignments and which were seized, should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the said Act and why penal action should not be taken against the 2nd respondent and others under Section 112 of the said act. No such notice was served upon the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent did appear through his advocate in the said show cause proceedings.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that the said Advance Licence granted to the 2nd respondent, was cancelled by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi on and from May 12, 1986 on the ground that the same was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.