SAMPAT RAJ DUGAR Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to an order for confiscation of goods passed under section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962.

(2.) Petitioner is an Indian National Resident Abroad (INRA) doing business at Hongkong in the name and style of "UNISILK". Respondent No. 3 who does business at Delhi in the name of "ACQUARIUS" was the holder of an Advance Import Licence Bearing No. P/L/3084211/C/XX/95/D/85 for import of raw silk. This licence was issued on or about 20-5-1985 and its duration was 18 months from the date of issue. Prior to October 1985 in response to orders placed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner had shipped three consignments of raw silk ex-Bombay Port. These consignments were cleared by the third respondent, who produced the clearance documents for that purpose from the petitioners bankers. The import of raw silk was under a stipulation that the silk was to be consumed for the manufacture of garments which were to be exported by the importer. This obligation apparently was not fulfilled by the third respondent. Between October and November 1985 the petitioner exported different quantities of raw silk in four lost. The consignments were made deliverable to the order of the petitioner. The requisite documents were sent to the petitioners bankers who had instructions to deliver the same to the purchaser, how were to pay across the counter. The third respondent appeared before the customs authorities and claimed the right to take delivery of the goods. By this time the customs authorities had come to know of the misuse made in respect of the earlier three consignments and also the alleged misrepresentation made by the third respondent in obtaining the Advance Licence. Proceedings were initiated against various persons including the third respondent by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. Petitioner though not formally served with notice in the proceedings, put in an appearance through Counsel and was hear. His stand before the Collector was that the title in the goods had not passe to respondent No. 3, that she had no right to abandon the goods, that whatever her lapses the goods could not be proceeded against to realise a penalty from her and that he had a right to re-export the goods. He made it clear that he was not aware of the basis on which the Advance Licence had been secured by respondent No. 3. In any case, he was not a party to the misuse of the imports made earlier, not to the alleged deceit practiced by respondent No. 3 in obtaining the Advance Licence. This had no effect upon the Collector and he negatived the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in the following terms :

(3.) Petitioner contends that the order passed by the Collector is illegal. This contention is based upon the following submissions :---