R SHAKUNTALA Vs. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment is being delivered by me only because certain jurisdictional objections were raised by Mr. Jethmalani to entertain this petition.

(2.) The main question in respect of which relief was asked for by the petitioner, Assistant Collector of Customs, is already resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties. But at the time when the petition was being argued, several objections were vehemently put forth questioning this Court's jurisdiction to entertain this petition and I found that each of the objections raised by Mr. Jethmalani had to be answered, on principle, as unsustainable. I had mentioned that I proposed to give a judgment on the point giving the reasons why I do not accept the contentions and on that account Counsel were heard fully and at length on those points. Moreover, these points are being raised before this Court quite frequently. That is the only reason why the present judgment is being delivered by me giving reasons why I entertained the petition and rejected the jurisdictional and other technical objections raised by Mr. Jethmalani and the other learned Counsel appearing for the defence.

(3.) A very short summary of the facts, which give rise to this revision application and to the jurisdictional caveat, may be given as follows :- Respondents 1 and 2 are father and son whereas respondent 3 Chandrakumar Kedia is a close associate of the first two respondents. On 30th January 1984 certain quantity of polyester suiting material of foreign origin valued at Rs. 10 lacs was noticed by the Customs Authorities in the godown of the Orient Transport Co., Khetani Textiles Compound, Kurla, Bombay. The import of these goods was prohibited except under certain circumstances. The Department's case relating to the nature of the prohibition will be presently mentioned. The Customs Officers suspected that these goods had been imported in violation of the prohibition and hence investigation started. The goods were seized from the godown under panchanama on 8th February 1984 with a confident belief that they were liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. Various reasons existed for their confiscation. One was that the place of storage of the goods had not been intimated to the Customs Authorities and, further, no intimation in respect of the storage of the goods was given to the Customs Authorities, nor any register or accounts or other requisite documents in connection with the goods were properly maintained or made available as required by the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act. The owner of the godown himself was not contactable. The owner of the goods also could not be reached. As a result of the general investigation, the Customs Authorities got strong reasons to believe that the seized goods formed a part of a total quantity of polyester suiting of foreign origin valued at a sum exceeding Rs. 2.5 crores, available in the local market, imported by the misuse of the actual user's licence. The actual users, when sought to be contacted, revealed, according to the Department, that they had not imported those articles at all. Thus the Department got clues in respect of a massive conspiracy, of which respondents 1 to 3 were the parties, to violate the provisions of the Customs Act by illegally importing goods under pretext of legality and siphoning them away into black market instead of despatching them to the licence holders for actual use as per the conditions of the import licence. The Department got clues to believe that respondent 1 was the real brain behind the conspiracy and that it was he who had master-minded the entire operation and had financed the imports for the firm which had the letters of authority from the licence holders, that is to say, the actual users. Respondents 2 and 3 actively associated with him for fulfilling the object of this conspiracy and various acts were committed by both of them with the help of others for the purpose of cheating the Customs Authorities and for the purpose of cheating the Government by importing goods which were virtually prohibited.