ATUL CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for appropriate Writ for quashing of an order of confiscation of certain goods and imposition of fine, for importing such goods without a licence in contravention of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act read with the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act for appropriate Writ directing the release and delivery of the goods to the said petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner carries on business of manufacture of soaps and other allied goods under the name and style of Jadavpur Soap Works at No. 6, Jagodyan Lane at Beliaghata and also maintains an office at Room No. 37 of Grosvenor House at premises No. 21, Old Court House Street, Calcutta. The respondents are the Union of India, Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, Collector of Customs, Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraisement and Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta.

(3.) In the course of his said business the petitioner obtained from the Chief Controller of Imports, Government of India, an import licence for importing Caustic Soda approximately valued C.I.F. at Rs. 7,20,000 from the United States of America. The goods despatched by the American exporters arrived in the Port of Calcutta in several consignments and were of the aggregate value of Rs. 7,38,779-2-0. The last consignment valued at Rs. 1,10,051-2- 0 was landed on or about the 3rd December 1948. In respect of this last consignment a Bill of Entry was submitted to the Customs Authorities on the 1st of February 1949. Owing to certain increase in the market price of Caustic Soda and of the freight charges the actual value of the imported goods exceeded the approximate value of the goods mentioned in the licence by Rs. 18,779-2-0, that is to say, by about 2.6 per cent which according to the petitioner was allowable increase as contemplated by the licence as also by the Notification, dated the 10th November 1947 issued by the Import Trade Controller, New Custom House at Calcutta. The Customs Authorities were of the view that the import of the excess quantity was not permitted by the licence held by the petitioner with the result that the whole quantity of the goods covered by the last consignment was seized and detained by the Customs Authorities, and the said goods were kept in the custody of the Port Authorities. It appears that as a result of a pre-audit objection, dated the 18th January 1949 the respondent No. 4 by a letter, dated the 24th January 1949 called upon the petitioner to produce another license to cover the excess value of the imported goods amounting to Rs. 18,779- 2-0, and except the goods of the value of Rs. 18,779-2-0 the balance of the goods covered by the last consignment was released and made over to the petitioner. On or about the 13th April 1949 the petitioner produced before the Customs Authorities another import licence bearing date 26th November 1948 which the petitioner had obtained for the purpose of importing further consignments of goods within a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. The respondent No. 4 however, by his letter, dated the 19th May 1949 refused to accept the second licence on the ground that it had been issued after the date of shipment of the consignment. The result was that the petitioner could not take delivery of the goods from the Port authorities. On the 27th October 1949 the respondent required the petitioner to produce the second licence for taking necessary action in the matter but as the original licence was mislaid the petitioner submitted a duplicate copy to the respondent No. 4 on the 2nd December 1949. On the 19th December 1949 the sales officer of Docks of the Port Commissioners wrote a letter to the petitioner intimating that the Caustic Soda lying in their custody was melting out of its containers and called upon the petitioner to expedite clearance. On the 27th December 1949 the petitioner was further informed by a letter of the Dock's Manager that some of the drums had gone empty and the contents of the rest were melting out of the containers. The petitioner has challenged in the petition the truth of the statements contained in these two letters of the Docks Manager but no such challenge was made in the correspondence that passed between the petitioner and the Port Authorities before the present petition was moved before this Court. By a letter, dated the 16th February 1950 the respondent No. 4 called upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against the petitioner for importing the excess quantity of the goods without a valid licence under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. By a letter, dated the 24th February 1950 the petitioner showed cause. On the 21st April 1950 the Port Authorities gave notice to the petitioner that for realization of the charges for storage of the goods, the goods would be sold under the provisions of Section 118 read with 119 of the Calcutta Port Act (III of 1890) and the sale was fixed on the 25th April 1950. But at the earnest entreaties of the petitioner's representative the drums were withdrawn from the sale on the 25th April 1950. Thereafter on the 24th of May 1950 the Docks Manager of the Port Authorities notified finally that the 61 drums of Caustic Soda would be disposed of by public auction to be held on the 21st June 1950. Thereafter on the 21st June 1950 the goods were sold in auction in the presence of the petitioner's officer who again made entreaties for postponement of the sale but the officers of the Port Commissioners refused to stay their hands any longer and so the goods were sold on that date. This fact of sale has however been challenged in the petition but there can hardly be any doubt having regard to the facts stated in paragraphs 8, 12 and 17 of the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and the copies of the documents annexed to this affidavit as also from some of the correspondence annexed to the petition that the sale in fact took place on the 21st of June as stated by the respondents. Although the goods were sold out it appears that by an order, dated the 23rd April 1951 passed by the respondent Assistant Collector, the petitioner's said goods were confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and a fine of Rs. 200 in lieu of confiscation was imposed under Section 183 of the said Act and it was directed that the petitioner might pay the said fine within four months from the date thereof, in addition to the duty, wharf rent and other charges leviable in respect of the goods. The petitioner has challenged the acts and orders of the respondents as mala fide and also as illegal on various grounds alleged in the petition. It is further stated in the petition that on the 15th May 1951 the petitioner demanded justice from the respondents but he obtained no redress at their hands. On the 30th May 1951 the petitioner moved this Court for the reliefs stated above and a Rule Nisi was issued on that date.