ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. SOHANLAL BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of Banerjee, J., making absolute a rule issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. The application out of which this appeal arises was in regard to the action of the appellant No. 1 in confiscating 350 bags of lac alleged to have misdeclared as Molumma lac and in imposing a personal penalty of Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) The respondent claims to be an established exporter of various forms of Land Acquisition Collector including refuse lac. On February 15, 1960, he entered into a contract for sale and export of 1800 bags of Moluma refuse lac to West Germany and registered the sale with the Indian Lac Exporters' Association. The respondent thereafter applied for an export licence for shipment of 350 bags of the said lac and he was granted an export licence for the same. Thereafter he brought in the said 350 bags of lac for export and tendered the same to the Custom House, Calcutta, in two separate shipping bills, one for 250 bags and the other for 100 bags. The respondent caused the goods to be surveyed and tested for lac contents by R.V. Briggs and Co. Private Ltd. and obtained a certificate showing that the percentage of lac content in the said consignment was 78.69 per cent. The appellants also took two samples for chemical examination out of the said two lots, and according to them the lac content of the lot of 250 bags was 81.64 per cent and the lac content of the lot of 100 bags was 88.37 per cent. But on a re-examination the appellants found that the lac content of the lot of 250 bags was 81.83 per cent and that of the lot of said 100 bags was 82.26 per cent.

(3.) A notice was served upon the respondent to show cause why the entire consignment should not be confiscated and penalty imposed upon him under Sections 167(8) and 167(37) of the Sea Customs Act. The charge framed against the respondent was that while he was permitted to export Molumma lac he attempted to export the commodity having lac content of 81.64 and 88.37 per cent, which are above the normal lac content of Molumma lac and for that reason he contravened the provisions of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. There was a further charge of violation of Section 167(37) of the Sea Customs Act as the respondent described the commodity as Molumma lac and valued it as such.