UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAGDISH SINGH ISHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, has been referred to this bench because the learned it, felt that certain observations made in Balbir Singh v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi, 62 Pun LR 549: (AIR 1960 Punj 488) needed to the reconsidered.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal are these: Two postal parcels, one containing 80 and the other 50 watches, were received in the post office at Delhi, both being addressed to Shri Jagdish Singh, a dealer in watches and doing business in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The customs officials had received information that these parcels contained goods imported in contravention of the Import Trade control Regulations and certain officials, therefore, went to the post office on the 16th of October, 1957, and kept watch there. Shri Jagdish Singh went to the Post office that day and took delivery of both the parcles. He was immediately apprehended. On examination the parcels were found to contain the goods already mentioned. He was questioned and he stated that the parcel containing 80 watches had been sent to him by Messrs New Sardar Watch Co. of Bombay and that he had honestly bought the watches from that company. The collector of central Excise and Land Customs, who ultimately looked into this case, felt satisfied that Shri Jagdish Singh's explanation regarding the parcel of 80 watches was true. He, therefore, ordered those 80 watches to be released. Regarding the second parcel containing 50 watches of foreign origin, however, Shri jagdish Singh failed to offer any satisfactory explanation. He, in fact, denied that the watches belonged to him or had been sent to him, and he pleaded ignorance about the identify of the person supposed to have sent the watches. The name of the consignor appeared as H. K. Lal on the postal parcel, but on enquiries made at bombay at the mentioned address it was found that no person of that name existed. The Collector of Customs, held that the fifty watches in question had been imported into India in contravention of the Regulations (and?) he ordered those watches to be confiscated. Further he ordered Shri Jagdish Singh to pay a personal penalty of Rs. 7,000/- under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with S. 19 of the same Act. Shri Jagdish Singh, filed an appeal against the decision of the Collector, but as he failed to deposit the penalty the appeal could not be heard on the merits and was dismissed. He made an attempt to approach higher authority, being the Central government, but was unsuccessful. Shri Jagdish Singh thereupon filed in this Court a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order made by the Collector of customs and his attack was mainly against the imposition of the penalty of Rs. 7,000/ -. This writ petition was heard by Capoor, J. sitting along. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Collector for Customs had nowhere found that shri Jagdish Singh had been concerned in the importation of the watches in question and without such a finding the Collector of Customs was not competent to impose any penalty and in that way the order imposing the penalty was illegal. This argument prevailed as the learned Single Judge felt bound by the observations of the Division Bench in 62 Pun LR 549: (AIR 1960 Punj 488 ). The result was that the writ petition was allowed by the learned Judge and the order imposing the penalty was quashed. It is against that order that the present appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been brought on behalf of the Union of india and the Central Board of Revenue and others.

(3.) MR. Jindra Lal in support of the appeal contends that a fair reading of the order of the Collector of Customs would show that he had in fact found that the respondent Shri Jagdish Singh had been concerned in the offence described at item 8 of S. 167 of the Sea Customs Act. That item runs thus: