1960 (6) TMI 2 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of multiple penalties under Sections 167(3), (8), and (37) of the Sea Customs Act.
2. Classification of currency as "goods" under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
3. Validity of a penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000 under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
4. Legality of the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Multiple Penalties under Sections 167(3), (8), and (37) of the Sea Customs Act:
The petitioner argued that the Customs Authorities could not proceed under Sections 167(3), (8), and (37) simultaneously as they deal with identical offenses, leading to multiple punishments for the same offense. The court rejected this argument, stating that the offenses under these sections are distinct. Section 167(3) pertains to knowingly concealing goods intended to be shipped contrary to the provisions of the Act. Section 167(8) deals with the attempted export of prohibited or restricted goods, prescribing both confiscation and a personal penalty. Section 167(37) concerns the false description of goods in the bill of entry or application. The court concluded that the integrated series of acts involved in illegal exportation could lead to multiple offenses and penalties.

2. Classification of Currency as "Goods" under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that currency does not qualify as "goods" under Section 167(8). The court referred to Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, which deems the restrictions on the export of Indian currency as imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act. Consequently, the court held that currency must be treated as "goods" for the purposes of Section 167(8).

3. Validity of a Penalty Exceeding Rs. 1,000 under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act:
The petitioner argued that the maximum penalty under Section 167(8) should not exceed Rs. 1,000, citing Supreme Court decisions in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay and F. N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The court reviewed conflicting judgments from various High Courts and concluded that Section 167(8) provides for two kinds of penalties: one related to the value of the goods (up to three times the value) and an alternative monetary penalty not exceeding Rs. 1,000. The court held that the penalty of Rs. 51,000 imposed was valid as it was within the permissible limit of up to three times the value of the goods.

4. Legality of the Order Passed by the Additional Collector of Customs:
The petitioner argued that the order was illegal because the show-cause notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, but the order was passed by the Additional Collector of Customs. The court noted that the petitioners were asked to state if they wished to be heard in person, and they did not request a personal hearing. Therefore, the decision could be made based on the evidence on record by any authorized officer. The Additional Collector was duly authorized to pass the order, making the process legal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application, holding that the Customs Authorities acted within their jurisdiction and imposed valid penalties under Sections 167(3), (8), and (37) of the Sea Customs Act. The classification of currency as "goods" was upheld, and the penalty exceeding Rs. 1,000 was deemed lawful under the provisions of Section 167(8). The order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs was found to be legally valid. The Rule was discharged, and interim orders, if any, were vacated.