9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Article 32 for quashing order of Collector of Customs confiscating gold and imposing fine. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order by the Collector of Customs confiscating gold and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The case involved the seizure of 150 gold bars from three individuals, including the petitioner, based on information received by Customs Officers. The petitioner admitted his involvement in sending the gold through the arrested individuals. The Collector of Customs issued a notice under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, giving the petitioner an opportunity to explain the possession of the gold. However, the petitioner failed to provide any witnesses to support his explanation, leading the Collector to conclude that the gold was smuggled. In the judgment, reference was made to the decision in Ujjam Bai v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, highlighting that the validity of an order made by a quasi-judicial authority under a statute within its jurisdiction cannot be questioned through a petition under Article 32. The Collector of Customs was considered a quasi-judicial authority acting within the scope of the Sea Customs Act, which was deemed valid by the Court. The petitioner's contention that the order was passed without jurisdiction was dismissed, as there was reasonable belief that the gold seized was smuggled, supported by the circumstances of the case and the numbering on the gold bars indicating imported gold. Further arguments raised by the petitioner, including the validity of the notice issued by the seizing officer and the imposition of the penalty, were also addressed. The Court found no merit in these contentions, emphasizing that as no error of jurisdiction was alleged, there was no violation of fundamental rights under Article 32. Ultimately, the petition was deemed baseless, leading to its dismissal with costs.
|
