COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. KANUNGO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -ON October 17, 1959, the establishment of the respondent No. 1, who carries on business as importer and dealer of watches, at No. 129, Radhabazar Street, Calcutta, was searched by the customs authorities. 390 pieces of wrist watches were seized by the customs authorities on the ground that these watches were not lawfully or validly imported. On January 27, 1960, 43 out of the said 3:90 watches were released by the customs authorities. A further lot of 64 watches were released on September 5, 1960, leaving a balance of 283 watches which still remained in the custody of the customs authorities. A notice dated August 12, 1960, was served upon the respondent calling upon it to produce documentary evidence in support of legal importation of 283 watches, within one week. In this notice it was stated that failing production of sufficient evidence as required, the respondent No. 1 was to show cause why the said 283 watches should not be confiscated under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. It is necessary to set out the material portion of the said notice which is as follows :-

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 therefore moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi which was disposed of by an order made by consent on January 25, 1962, on the following terms:-

(3.) IN terms of the said order the customs authorities considered the preliminary issues mentioned therein and decided them against the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by this Order the respondent No. 1 again moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi. At the hearing of the said rule, the learned counsel for the customs authorities made certain concessions, which were recorded in the order by which the said rule was disposed of, which are as follows: -