1964 (3) TMI 7 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
2. Validity of penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000.
3. Constitutionality of Section 167(8) in light of Article 14.
4. Ultra vires challenge to Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act under Article 19.
5. Ownership of the premises where gold was seized.
6. Execution of search warrants and authority under the Arms Act.
7. Acceptance of findings of fact by the appropriate authorities.
8. New point raised on exhaustion of warrant and seizure by police.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court pertains to a case where the appellant, Munshi Ram, was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for the seizure of 450 tolas of gold in Rajasthan. The appellant challenged the penalty on various grounds, including lack of hearing, legality of penalty amount, and constitutional validity of the provisions. However, during the hearing, the appellant did not press these points. The Court noted that the appellant was linked to the seized properties, as evidenced by his involvement in pointing out the buried gold during the search. The Court emphasized that findings of fact by the authorities must be accepted as correct and not reexamined. Additionally, a new argument was raised regarding the exhaustion of the warrant and the involvement of the police in the search and seizure. The Court refused to entertain this new point, stating that it was not raised earlier and could not be considered at this stage, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of accepting factual findings by authorities, the need to raise all relevant arguments in a timely manner, and the limitations on introducing new points during appellate proceedings. The Court's decision underscores the significance of procedural adherence and the finality of certain legal determinations, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeal in this case.