TASTY BITE EATABLES LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order in original dated 19th October, 1987 ("impugned order" for short) passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, who in exercise of powers conferred under section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("act" for short) confiscated "form, fill and sealing machine" under section 111 (d) and (m) of the Act and gave option to the petitioners under section 125 of the Act to pay fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the reasons recorded in the impugned order. FACTS:

(2.) THE facts in short reveal that petitioner No. 1, being armed with Industrial Licence issued by the Ministry of Industries, Government of India for manufacture of Tomato Paste/puree, Frozen Vegetables and Ready-to-serve Food, desired to import "form, fill, and sealing machine. Accordingly, order was placed on the foreign supplier on 17th December, 1986. The goods arrived at Bombay Port on or about 20th August, 1987 and the petitioners filed prior Bill of Entry No. 2071/1421 dated 17th August, 1987 in the Customs House at Bombay for clearance thereof. The petitioners on 20th August, 1987 itself paid duty of Rs. 6,26,143/ -. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Docks) felt that the machine did not have vacuumising and gas flushing arrangement. The second petitioner explained that the same would be procured locally as it was not economical to import the same. The customs authorities on 13th October, 1987 issued show cause notice. The petitioners replied the show cause notice by itself letter dated 15th October, 1987. The petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2, the Collector of Customs, Bombay on 19th October, 1987 for personal hearing. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19th October, 1987 confiscated the goods and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine together with penalty as enumerated in the opening para of this judgment. The Collector of Customs recorded following reasons in support of his order:

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court for more than one reason. Firstly, the Collector of Customs relied upon the admission of the petitioner extracted in para 14 of the impugned order. Admission is the best piece of evidence in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of (Thiru John v. Returning Officer) A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 1724. It is therefore absolutely clear that the machine has been imported by the petitioners without vacuumising and gas flushing system and, consequently, it was not eligible for import under O. G. L. nor for assessment under concessional rate of duty under notification 125 of 1986. The said finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the writ jurisdiction.