1966 (11) TMI 94 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Customs Officer concerned was a judicial or quasi-judicial authority.
2. Whether there was a violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Relevance of motive or intention in determining an offense under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
4. Whether the petition should be dismissed due to the absence of specific writs in the prayers.
5. Whether the petition should be dismissed due to the availability of alternative remedies under the Sea Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Authority:
The court had to determine if the Customs Officer was a judicial or quasi-judicial authority. Initially, the respondents conceded that the Customs authorities were quasi-judicial bodies based on certain Supreme Court decisions but later withdrew this concession. The court noted that the Supreme Court's later view, as seen in F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs and Sewpujanrai Indrasanarai Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, was that orders of confiscation or penalty under the Sea Customs Act are quasi-judicial orders. Thus, the court held that the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs was a quasi-judicial authority and had to observe the principles of natural justice.

2. Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice:
The court examined whether the principles of natural justice were violated. The appellant argued that they were not given sufficient opportunities to represent their case. The court noted that the show cause notice and the final order were based on information and reports not disclosed to the appellant, violating the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the appellant should have been given a fair opportunity to comment on the evidence and records used against them. The court concluded that the Collector failed to observe these principles, rendering the order void.

3. Relevance of Motive or Intention:
The court discussed whether motive or intention (mens rea) is relevant in determining an offense under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The Supreme Court had observed that the element of mens rea is a relevant factor in such offenses. The court held that the customs authorities must consider the element of mens rea during their investigations.

4. Absence of Specific Writs in the Prayers:
The respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed due to the absence of specific writs in the prayers. The court referred to various authorities, including Charanjit Lal v. Union of India and Nihar Kumari v. Commissioner of Police, which held that the application cannot be thrown out simply because the proper writ or direction has not been prayed for. The court concluded that the absence of specific writs in the prayers did not warrant the dismissal of the petition.

5. Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The respondents contended that the petition should be dismissed as the appellant had alternative remedies under the Sea Customs Act. The court noted that while the existence of alternative remedies is a factor to consider, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court cited M. G. Abrol v. Shantilal Chhotelal & Co., where it was held that the High Court could exercise its discretion to grant relief even if alternative remedies were available. The court found no exceptional circumstances to interfere with the trial court's discretion in entertaining the petition.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute. The order of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs dated December 12, 1951, was quashed by a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, and a Writ in the nature of Mandamus was issued directing the respondents not to give effect to the same. The respondents were allowed to proceed with the show cause notice in accordance with the law. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →