RADHA KISSEN MORE Vs. E RAJARAM RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must fail on two technical grounds, although Mr. Roy was able to make some kind of One point, which also was, however, technical in character.

(2.) The appeal is directed against an order or Base J. dated 4-6-1952, by which the learned Judge discharged a Rule obtained by the appellants under Article 326 of the Constitution for the issue of various writs upon respondent No. 1. In the end Mr. Roy limited himself to only one ground of attack.

(3.) It is not necessary to state the facts at any great length. Suffice it to say that, in the year 1949, the appellants imported 1,000 drums of what was described by them as "solvent oil mineral spirits." The goods were cleared on 9th and 10th of August, 1949, when a duty of only 3 annas per Imperial Gallon was charged and paid upon the appellants executing a guarantee bond to the effect that if the substance contained In the drums turned out to be something different from what they had declared it to be and to be liable to a higher duty, they would be bound to pay such duty as also such penalty as might be imposed. Therefore, it appears a test of a sample quantity taken from one of the drums was held and according to the Analyst's report, the constants agreed with those of mineral turpentine. On receipt of the report, the Customs authorities took the view that the substance, contained in the drums was not solvent oil as it had been declared to be, but was mineral turpentine or some turpen tine substitute which was liable to higher duty under item 30(4) of Schedule I of the Tariff Act. Accordingly, they served a notice on or rather wrote a letter to the appellants informing them of the result of the test and asking them to explain why action should not be taken against them under Ss. 167(8) and 167(37), Sea Customs Act. The appellants replied to that notice or letter by a letter of their own, dated 23-11-1949, and the substance of that reply was that the test report was inconclusive and furnished no ground for say-Ing that the substance concerned was mineral turpentine and not solvent oil. A further statement was made to the effect that the substance had been imported as a cleaner solvent. It appears that thereafter the Customs authorities directed the appellants to furnish evidence that the substance in question had actually been sold in the trade as a cleaner solvent. In response to that requisition, the appellants furnished the Customs authorities with the names of five parties to whom the oil had been sold. The Customs authorities were still not satisfied and asked the appellants to furnish copies of the letters they claimed to have received from two of their' customers by which it had been complained that the substance supplied to them was not satisfactory and was not serving the purposes of solvent oil. (SIC) is not surprising that the Customs authorities did not take these letters as evidence of the sale of the substance as cleaner solvent, for what the letters clearly show is that the substance had been sold to the writers as solvent oil. The Customs authorities apparently took the view that the conclusion drawn by them from the result of the test had not in any way been shaken or dislodged and on 11-4-1950, the Collector of Customs passed an order directing the appellants to pay a further sum of Rs. 8,557/- as extra duty and imposing on them a fine of Rs. 65,300/- under Clauses 8 and 37 of Section 167, Sea Customs Act. This order was subsequently amended by an order passed on 10-7-1950, when the order imposing a fine was converted into an order imposirig a personal penalty, the amount payable and the party made liable remaining, however, the same.