BOMBAY ART JEWELLERS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUS PREVENTIVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition.

(2.) Normally the Appellant Court ought not to interfere with the user of discretion of the learned Trial Judge unless the same can be termed to be otherwise perverse or not in accordance with the known principles of law. In order to assess the situation, however, it is a duty incumbent on the Appellate Court to apprise itself on the factual context and see for itself whether in fact such an exercise of discretion can be termed to be in accordance with law. At this juncture, however, adverting to the contextual facts, it appears that 50 Kgs. of gold was imported by MMTC and subsequently was made over to the appellant-petitioner herein. Obviously MMTC was otherwise satisfied as to the credibility of the appellant as otherwise MMTC, a Government organisation being an authority within the meaning of Article 12 would not have asked for a bank guarantee covering the value of 30 Kgs. of gold only and for the balance 20 Kgs. of gold no security of any nature was asked for and 20 Kgs. of gold was made over to the Appellant.

(3.) Let us now however once again deal with the factual aspect as regards the satisfaction of MMTC in so far as the credibility of the Appellants herein. The facts depict that the appellant has been receiving benefit of MMTC's gold for a period of about six months having the last consignment for 50 Kgs. Being the subject matter of the instant matter, Be it noted that the appellant herein at an earlier point of time was apprehended at Bombay by reason of exportation of brasswares as against silverwares and it is on this background MMTC, a Government organisation, found it fit to put certain confidence on the appellant to allow for 20 Kgs. of gold without any security whatsoever. While it is true that it is for the MMTC to decide as to who should be trusted or not and formulate its policy and it is for the Law Court to dictate its requirement, but in the contextual facts, the Court cannot help but to record its surprise and wonder in regard to the Governmental action.