HARCHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained on September 24, 1973, against certain orders made upto revision under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of two consignments as mentioned hereinafter, meant for export out of India.

(2.) The petitioner, Harchand, has stated to have carried on business, at all material times, under the name and style of Harchand Jawharmal. He has claimed to be the sole proprietor of the firm as mentioned above and has also stated to have carried on such business at premises No. 65, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta. In the Rule, the orders made after revision, in respect of two sets of cases have been impeached. The first case relates to nine consignments under nine shipping bills and the second one relates to four consignments under four shipping bills. So far as the first case is concerned, the relevant orders would be Order No. 21 dated February 18, 1967, as passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta; Order No. 492 of 1969, viz., the appellate order made in the connected appeal by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and Order No. 6A of 1971, which was the revisional order made by the Government of India. The orders relevant for the second case are Order No. 20 dated February 18, which was an order passed in the connected appeal the Central Board of Excise and Customs and Order No. 4A dated January 25, 1971, being the revisional order by the Government of India. For the purpose of effecting the shipments of the concerned consignments, the petitioner appointed one S.A. Wahab, as clearing agent who again has been stated to be associated with one Sri Narayan Ghosh, a licensed Customs House Clearing Agent.

(3.) The material facts, relevant for the connected cases would be available from trie jfacts as stated hereafter. By the said two consignments, the petitioner intended to ship out of India by "S.S. Slaoe" ivory art wears and ladies' plastic hand bags. He has stated that in or about the third week of May 1960, he intended to export out of India, the consignment as mentioned hereinbefore to Malaya. It is his case that for such purpose, on or about May 25, 1960, 25 cases containing such goods were made ready for shipment by the vessel in question. It is his case that for those 25 cases, he prepared 9 shipping bills, particulars whereof are available from the petition and the entries as made in those shipping bills have also been stated to be correct. The petitioner has stated that for effecting the shipments, he presented 9 shipping bills in duplicate to the Export Department of the Calcutta Customs House and obtained an order from them through the Preventive Officer, attached to the concerned vessel for examining the consignments in question and to pass them for shipment, if in order. It is also his case that on May 23, 1960, he applied to the Commanding Officer of the concerned vessel, requesting him to receive on Board the said 25 cases governed by the shipping bills in question and in accordance with the current practice the said cases were brought alongside the vessel on or by May 25, 1960. He has alleged that on May 26, 1960, the Customs Officer attached to the vessel, had sample checking of some cases out of the said 25 cases and found the consignments in question to be in order. Accordingly, it has been stated that the Customs Officer concerned, allowed the cases covered by those shipping bills to be shipped on the vessel, on duly passing neccessary orders on the shipping bills. Thereafter, it has been alleged that necessary documents containing the formal permission issued by the Customs Department, were presented by the petitioner's clearing agent as mentioned above, to the ship's Officer and then the said 25 cases were taken on board the vessel in accordance with the proceduie followed for loading cargo in export vessels. The petitioner has stated that in the matter of examination and passing the consignments, he had nothing to do and in fact he did not handle them. He has alleged further that on or about June 2, 1960, the Customs Officers opened and re-examined on board the vessel, in the presence of the ship's officers and his representatives as mentioned hereinbefore, those cases as covered by the shipping bills in question and on such examination, the cases as shipped on board, were found to contain saw dust only. The petitioner has stated that the cases which were placed alongside the vessel by him, contained the goods as mentioned in the several shipping bills and not saw dust, as has been alleged now to be containing. The petitioner expressed his surprise as to how on the subsequent checking saw dust could be found out in those cases contained in the 25 consignments, when at least 9 of them were checked and found to be in order by proper Customs Officers.