MESSRS. PARMAR & CO. Vs. V.R. GUPTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx It is apparent that the question before me relates to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to proceed to investigate the charges made against the petitioners under clauses (8) and (37) of Sec. 167 of the Act. It is also apparent that the provisions relating to levy of customs duty as contained in Chapter V, Sections 20 to 41, of the Act have no direct bearing on the provisions relating to offences and penalties and procedure relating to offences, appeals etc. as contained in Chaptes XVI and XVII and Sections 167 to 193 of the Act. It is, however, true that the offences mentioned in Sec. 167 are related to questions of the evasion of duty and importation and exportation of goods in violation of prohibition or restrictions imposed and that all these provisions are indirectly connected with each other. The approach to the question before me, accordingly, in my view, must be to examine the question of jurisdiction and rights of respondent No. 1 under the provisions of Chapters XVI and XVII. Mr. Lulla for the petitioners has argued the contentions made by the petitioners by laying great emphasis on the provisions contained in Chapter V without examining in detail the question of jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Act.

(2.) The first contention raised by the petitioners is that under the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Act it is compulsory for the assessing authority, in every ease where goods appear to be chargeable with a higher rate or amount of duty than that to which they would be subject according to the value thereof as mentioned in the bill of entry or shipping bill, to detain the goods. It is further contended that the assessing authority has upon detention to decide either to retain the goods for the Central Government at the value mentioned in the bill of entry or in default to deliver the goods in question on payment of duty charged according to the value mentioned in the bill of entry to the importer. Reference is thereupon made to the provisions for penalties of confiscation of goods in respect of offences in clauses (8) and (37) of Sec. 167. It is contended that having regard to the aforesaid scheme of compulsory detention and release of ad valorem goods the penalty of confiscation is impossible to be imposed on an importer of ad valorem goods. The contention is that it being compulsory for the assessing authority to detain and keep the imported goods under Sec. 32 for the Central Government or in deault to deliver the goods on payment of duty charged according to the bill of entry, it is impossible that the goods should be liable to be confiscated as provided in respect of the offences under the aforesaid two clauses of Sec. 167. It is contended that the provisions of Sec. 32 are compulsory and confiscation being impossible there is no jurisdiction in the assessing authorities under Chapters XVI and XVII to, take proceedings against an importer of ad valorem goods.

(3.) In this connection reference may be made to the provisions of Sections 31 and 32 of the Act. The marginal notes to each of these sections run as follows :