HUMAYUN ABDULLALI Vs. M G ABROL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of two orders, oen made by the 1st respondent, viz., Additional Collector of Customs and the second made by the Central Board of Revenue in appeal against the order made by the 1st respondent. The relevant facts as appearing from the documents annexed to the petition and the affidavit in reply are as follows:

(2.) In 1955 the petitioner received an inquiry from some foreign customer for export and sale from India for coarse white goat-hair or wool. The petitioner had in that connection sent his inaterial which is described as petitioner's type 100AA to that foreign customer. The petitioner was in doubt as to whether he could export his goods as wool waste which did not require export licence or only as raw wool which required export licence. In that connection the petitioner's representative interviewed the Deputy Marketing Development Officer in Bombay with a sample: but the officer refused to give any opinion intimating to the petitioner that it was not his function to give opinions to the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter in 1956 shipped 25 bales of his goods outside India in the end of January 1956. The petitioner further shipped 10 bales of his goods outside India in May 1956. On 15-10-1956 the petitioner submitted his shipping bill No. 2402 in connection with 15 bales mentioned in the petition. These bales were described in the shipping bills as 6534 Lbs. of Indian wool waste of the value of Rs. 11,000/- to be shipped by S. S .Aagtedijk. In connection with these goods of the petitioner there being doubt as to whether it was waste woo, the Customs appeared to have taken opinion of the senior Marketing Development Officer, Wool Bristles and Goat Hair Grading Scheme, Bombay. The opinion of the officer was that the petitioner's goods were not waste wool. By a show cause notice dated October 22nd, 1956 the Assistant Collector of Customs gave notice to the petitioner that the shipping bill contained a miseclaration of the description of the goods and involved an attempt to evade restriction export of the articles in question. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner he was informed that his goods were examined by the Officer mentioned above and were found to be "not wool waste." He was also informed that the goods were "Indian Wool Raw" and that they could not be allowed to be exported without a grading certificate from the competent authorities and without the endorsement from the Export Trade Control Authorities for having licensed the goods as "Indian Wool Raw." As to the fact that there existed as regards wool the aforesaid restrictions on export requiring "grading" of the goods and "an Export Trade Control Licence" there is no dispute. The petitioner has not made any grievance in the petition that he was not informed of all the material facts relating to the offence which he had attempted to commit.