KAILASH AGENCIES MADRAS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petitioner for issuance of a writ of certiorari is for the purpose of quashing the orders passed by the Customs authorities levying in penalty on the petitioner kailash Agencies Madras.

(2.) THE petitioner imported on 27th of November, 1959, "diamine Deep Black ECE' under an import licence issued by the Joint Controller of Imports Madras who is the first respondent, The item imported fails under Part IV/44, under the heading "wattle Bark', and was interchangeable with Part V/6 which reads "dyeing and tanning substances all sorts not otherwise specified'. The Collector of Customs took the view that the imported goods were 'coal tar dyes and came under Part III serial No. 1-B. It was held that the articles so imported were not interchangeable as claimed by the petitioner. Consequently it was directed that the goods should be confiscated or directed that the good should be confiscated or directed that the goods should be confiscated or in lieu of it a fine of RS. 8,250/- -be paid. The appeal before the Central Board of Revenue which is the second respondent having been rejected on 7th of July 1960, and a further revision before the Joint secretary, Ministry of Finance (respondent No. 3) also having been dismissed on 19th of January 1961 the petitioner has approached this Court for redress.

(3.) MR. Seshadri the learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly refrained form attacking the order on its merits. Instead it is urged by him that the Customs authorities have showed discrimination in imposing the fine. In Paragraph 8 of the petition it is asserted that precisely similar goods were imported prior it the import by the petitioner by Messrs, M. Sheriff and Sons, Madras, and the same were passed without imposition of any and the same were passed without imposition of any penalty. The petitioner when he made a similar import in precisely the same circumstances has been visited with a heavy hand. 'diamine deep black' having been found to be interchangeable in the case of M. Sheriff and Sons the petitioner should have been accorded similar treatment. Subsequent to the import by the petitioner, Sheriff and Sons against imported the same goods against the same licence in October, 1959, This time the Collector imposed a penalty of only 10 percent of the values of the goods. In the case of the petitioner it is not denied that the penalty amounts to 50 percent of the value of the goods imported.