9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the interlocutory order refusing the petitioner's prayers made on June 20, 1969. 2. Validity of the Appellate Order dated September 17, 1969. 3. Validity of the final order of confiscation dated September 27, 1969. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Interlocutory Order Refusing the Petitioner's Prayers Made on June 20, 1969: The petitioner challenged the interlocutory order of the Collector of Customs, dated July 26, 1969, which refused two prayers: a certified copy of the forensic test report regarding the key and a summons to Messrs. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. The petitioner contended that the refusal of these prayers resulted in a denial of a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his defense. The Court held that the Collector was in error in refusing the disclosure of the forensic test report on the ground that it would only be disclosed if used against the petitioner. The Court emphasized that a document relevant to the case should be made available to the defense, and refusal on the ground that it does not support the prosecution is unjust. Regarding the summons, the Court noted that the Collector misinterpreted Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for summoning any person necessary for giving evidence. The refusal to issue a summons for a defense witness was deemed an improper use of the powers under Section 108(1). The Court concluded that the refusal of these prayers materially prejudiced the petitioner in the adjudication proceeding. 2. Validity of the Appellate Order Dated September 17, 1969: The petitioner disputed the Appellate Order which returned the memo of appeal on the ground that no appeal lies against an interlocutory order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court acknowledged the argument that Section 128 is broad enough to include interlocutory orders. However, since the interlocutory order was found to be unsustainable, the Court did not find it necessary to decide this issue finally. The Appellate Order was effectively set aside as the interlocutory order itself was set aside. 3. Validity of the Final Order of Confiscation Dated September 27, 1969: The petitioner challenged the final order of confiscation on two grounds. First, the order was passed in a proceeding where the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to substantiate his defense due to the refusal of his prayers made on June 20, 1969. Second, the adjudicating authority disposed of the proceeding ex parte without giving further notice to the petitioner after the appeal was returned. The Court held that the final order of confiscation could not be upheld as it followed an erroneous interlocutory order that denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Additionally, the Court found that the Collector acted improperly by disposing of the proceeding without giving further notice to the petitioner, thereby violating the petitioner's right to be heard. Conclusion: Both the interlocutory order dated July 26, 1969, and the final order of confiscation dated September 27, 1969, were set aside. The Collector of Customs was directed to proceed afresh with the adjudication in accordance with the law. The Court issued a writ in the nature of Certiorari in each case incorporating these directions, with no order as to costs.
|
