BODDU RAMAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm represented by its partner one Boddu Ramaiah. The firm deals in Stainless Steelware. While the partner was out of station, the officers of the Custom House, Visakhapatnam, questioned Boddu Atchutharama Gupta, son of he partner, who was present in the shop, as to whether he was in possession of they goods of foreign origin and seized certain goods consisting of Cassette Recorder etc. on the ground that they were imported illegally. The seizure is said to have take place on 7-9- 1978. Thereafter the requirement of the show cause notice and other formalities were dispensed with, as in his statement, the junior partner has stated that the case may be adjudicated without a show cause notice. On the basis of the material, the Assistant Collector, Customs, respondent No 3, on 11- 9-1978 held that the seized goods were illegally imported and acquired in violation of the prohibition imposed under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1974 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was also held that the said Atchutharama Gupta is liable to penalty under Section 105 of the Customs Act as he was in possession of the contraband goods and a sum of Rs. 300.00 was levied as penalty. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal to the 2nd respondent who held that there is circumstantial evidence to hold that the goods are smuggled goods and upheld the order of the 3rd respondent. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, a revision was preferred to the 1st respondent. The revision was also dismissed and that order is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit, inter alia, it is stated that Section 11(g) of the Customs Act, 1962 has no application, as the confiscated goods were purchased by Atchutarama Gupta from some unknown persons as per his statement dated 7-9-1978. It was further stated that even if there was illegality in the seizure it would not vitiate the confiscation as the same was done following the seizure. Therefore, it was prayed that the order of confiscation may be held as legal and valid.

(3.) Sri Subrahmanya Narasu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the authorities proceeded on the assumption that the goods in question were acquired in violation of the prohibition imposed under Clause 3 of the Import Control Order read with Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1974 and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. In the absence of anything on record, it cannot be assumed that the goods were brought into India in violation of the said provision and as such confiscation under Section 111(d) is bad in law. Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :