EAST INDIA COMMERCIAL LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the 20th September 1950 the Collector of Customs, who has his office at Customs House, Calcutta, made an order directing confiscation of 50 drums of Mineral Oil out of 2000 drums of Mineral Oil which had been imported by the petitioner, the East India Commercial Company Ltd. , and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 61,000;- on the said company under section 167 clause 8 and section 37 of the Sea Customs Act. Aggrieved by this order the company appealed from it to the Central Board of Revenue under the provisions of section 188 of the Sea Customs Act. On the 8th of April 1952 the Central Board of Revenue made the following order in disposing of the appeal:-

(2.) THEREUPON the present application for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution was made to this Court by the Company. The Collector of Customs having his office at Customs House, Calcutta was made the first respondent in this application; E. S. Krishnamurthy. Member, Central Board of Revenue having his office at Delhi, who had made the order mentioned above on the 8th April 1952, was made the second respondent and the Union of India was made the third respondent. In this application the company prayed for an order "for the issue of writ of certiorari against the first and second respondents calling upon them to produce all records resulting in the. decision and order dated the 20th September by the first respondent and the order dated 8th April 1952 of the second respondent; an order for the issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent from taking steps in connection with the goods and giving effect to the recovery of the penalty and extra duty imposed; a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the first and second respondents to cancel or forbear from giving effect to the two orders mentioned; a direction that no penalty was realizable from the petitioner and that all the three respondents be directed to refund the penalty of Rs. 61,000/- deposited by the petitioner under the provisions of section 189 of the Sea Customs Act and the return to the petitioner the 50 drums detained by the Customs authorities. " A rule was issued on the respondents why the writs should not be issued. When the rule came up for hearing a point was raised whether any writ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution could issue against the second respondent, the Central Board of Revenue,

(3.) WHICH has its permanent office outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The further question appears to have been raised that if no such writ or order could issue against the second respondent, none could issue against the first respondent, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. On the prayer of the parties the learned Judge has made thereon a report under Chapter V, Rules 2 and 3 of the Original Side Rules saying that this matter can be more advantageously heard by a Bench of two or more Judges. This is the matter now for cur consideration.