1978 (12) TMI 49 - SC - Central Excise

Whether on February 18 1962 an opportunity was given to Tharad and Purohit to explain the markings on the packages? Held that - In the present case the statement alleged to have been recorded of some person from the shop of M/s. Dayalji Bhawanji was not made available to Purohit. The name of the person who made the statement was not even disclosed. Even though a request was expressly made the person who made the statement was not brought before the Collector of Customs for examination and even the person who had recorded the statement did not appear before that authority. The story of Purohit that he had travelled on August 6 1961 from Pandu to Shillong was disbelieved without giving him a hearing on the evidence collected especially after he had insisted that the clerk who had made the statement should be examined. It is again not clear whether any explanation relating to the markings on the packages from which inferences were raised was asked for. Thus the High Court was therefore right in holding that the proceedings of the Collector of Customs were vitiated because the enquiry held by the Collector violated the rules of natural justice. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Search and seizure of packages suspected to be unlawfully imported.
2. Show cause notice for forfeiture under Land Customs Act and Sea Customs Act.
3. Failure to hold an inquiry in compliance with the rules of natural justice.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari.
5. Review of evidence regarding the Collector of Customs' proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the search of a motor-car and seizure of packages suspected to be unlawfully imported. The Land Customs Officer found two packages of cinnamon in the baggage compartment of the car, leading to their attachment.

2. Notices were issued under the Land Customs Act and Sea Customs Act, requiring individuals to show cause why the motor-car and packages should not be forfeited. The claimants contended ownership and provided explanations for the presence of the cinnamon packages.

3. The High Court found that the Collector's actions were vitiated due to failure to conduct an inquiry in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The Collector's decision was based on discrepancies and markings on the packages without providing the accused with a fair opportunity to respond.

4. The judgment discussed the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari despite the existence of a right of appeal. The High Court may intervene if a quasi-judicial authority acts without jurisdiction or violates natural justice principles.

5. Upon review of the evidence, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that the Collector's proceedings lacked adherence to natural justice principles. The failure to provide full details of charges, evidence, and opportunities for the accused to respond rendered the proceedings flawed.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision that the Collector of Customs' proceedings were vitiated due to the violation of natural justice principles. The Supreme Court allowed for a fresh inquiry to be conducted in compliance with the law, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures in quasi-judicial proceedings.