KSHETRA NATH BASAK Vs. COLLECTOR OF LAND CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant is Kshetra Nath Basak. His complaint is against the order of the Collector of Land Customs dated 24-1-1957 by which the Land Customs Collector confiscated the gold bullion and silver obsolete coins under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. These cold bullion and silver coins were seized on 2-8-1955 as being illegally and illicitly imported into India from Pakistan in contravention of Section 5 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 read with relevant Notifications mentioned in the Land Customs Collector's order issued under Section 8 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Land Customs Collector also held that an offence under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act bad been committed as bring applicable under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

(2.) Mr. Section Burman, learned Counsel for the applicant, challenged the order of confiscation on a number of grounds. His first ground is that the Land Customs Collector failed to notice and consider the most relevant document in his favour which, according to the applicant is the purchase or cash memo showing the purchase of some gold. His second objection is that the Land Customs Collector was wrong in applying the provisions of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act and throwing the burden of proof upon the applicant. His third objection is that the Collector did not give him the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation as provided in Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act as applied to Land Customs. Finally, Mr. Burman argued that the necessary conditions proving contravention of Section 5 of the Land Customs Act have not been satisfied.

(3.) It will be necessary in this case to have a bibliography of the sections of the relevant Statutes and the Notifications which have a bearing on the fate of this application. The reason why I say so is that the statutory mosaic in this case is so variegated and so difficult to find that it is best to have them in one place even in a judgment for the purpose of reference.