1962 (3) TMI 2 - SC - Customs

Confiscation of smuggled goods from a person not concerned with their importation Justified Confiscation Natural justice - Reasonable belief

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act.
2. Justification of gold confiscation under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
3. Compliance with natural justice during the enquiry by the Collector of Central Excise.
4. Reasonableness of the belief that the seized gold was smuggled.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act:
The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, claiming it infringed on his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The High Court rejected this challenge. The Supreme Court noted that this issue had already been decided in the case of Collector of Customs v. N. Sampathu Chetty, where the Constitutional Bench upheld the validity of Section 178A. Therefore, this principal point was concluded against the appellant.

2. Justification of Gold Confiscation under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act:
The appellant argued that the confiscation of gold was not justified under Section 167(8) because the High Court found that he was not concerned with the importation of the gold. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 167(8) provides for the confiscation of goods imported contrary to statutory prohibition or restriction, irrespective of whether the person in possession was concerned with the importation. Therefore, the confiscation of the gold was valid once it was established that the goods were imported contrary to the statutory provisions.

3. Compliance with Natural Justice During the Enquiry by the Collector of Central Excise:
The appellant contended that certain witnesses were not produced for cross-examination, which violated natural justice. The Supreme Court found no substance in this argument. It was established that one witness, Anwar, was examined in the presence of the appellant's counsel, who chose not to cross-examine him. As for the other two witnesses, Marotrao and Rambhau, their statements were rendered irrelevant by the appellant's change in his version of events. Therefore, the enquiry was conducted fairly and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.

4. Reasonableness of the Belief that the Seized Gold was Smuggled:
The appellant argued that there was no material on record to show that the seizure was based on a reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled. The Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting two key factors: the large quantity of gold (290.6 Tolas) valued at nearly Rs. 30,000, and the suspicious circumstances of the appellant's journey, including traveling without a railway ticket. These factors justified a reasonable belief in the mind of the officer that the gold was smuggled. The Court emphasized that its role was not to sit in appeal over the officer's decision but to determine if there was prima facie ground for the reasonable belief.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to validate the confiscation of the gold and rejecting the appellant's arguments on all counts. The appeal was dismissed with costs.