9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. In the course of the search, the Customs authorities seized 390 pieces of watches and took them away. By an order dated January 27, 1960, the Assistant Collector of Customs released 43 watches out of the 390 watches which had been seized. On September 5, 1960, he released 64 more watches, and on January 11, 1961 he released another three watches and confiscated the remaining 280 pieces of wrist watches. 3. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Additional Collector of Customs who quashed the confiscation, without going into the merits of other grounds, as according to him principles of natural justice had not been complied with the case. 4. A fresh notice was thereafter served on the Appellant to show cause why the watches seized should not be confiscated. The Appellant thereupon filed a petition in the High Court challenging the initiation of fresh proceedings in respect of the 280 watches. A consent order was made by the High Court, and in pursuance of that order that Deputy Collector of Customs decided certain preliminary issues against the Appellant, on April 19, 1962. Aggrieved by this decision, the Appellant filed another petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on August 7, 1963) the Additional Collector, after giving reasons, passed an order confiscating the watches under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. After referring to the history of the litigation and the reply of the Appellant, dated May 25, 1963, it was stated in the order that on June 13, 1963, the Appellant company was granted a personal hearing when its representatives desired to be furnished with the details of the enquiries conducted by the Customs House. The Additional Collector of Customs also referred to their contention that the watches had been purchased between 1956 and 1959 and they had produced vouchers for the same and as such they had been able to establish that the watches had not been obtained by them in an illegal way. 7. The Additional Collector gave the following reasons for coming to his conclusions : "The party originally sought to connect the watches under seizure with certain transactions some of which have been found on enquiry to be false and fictitious. The result of the enquiries and the evidence on which the charges were framed were made known to the party specifically u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 1 came to this court twice previously with writ petitions, for relief, and appropriate reliefs were granted to it. Yet it failed to satisfy the Customs authorities that 280 watches were not imported in violation of the statutory restrictions. The Customs authorities came to the conclusion that the said 280 watches were illegally imported and thereupon made an order for confiscation of the same. It is not for this court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to revise, set aside or quash this order, in the facts of this case". 10. The High Court granted the certificate under Article 133(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution and the appeal is now before us. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the burden on the Customs Authorities has not been discharged. He urged that there was no evidence that the watches had not been brought into India lawfully. He urged, secondly, that the impugned order wrongly placed the burden on the appellant, thirdly, that the impugned order was made in contravention of natural justice; and fourthly, that there was no evidence that watches had been imported in contravention of law. 12. We may first de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 9 and 10 of the show cause notice it was stated as follows : "(8) Of the persons from whom the said 54 pcs. of watches are alleged to have been received for correction and repair, almost all of them made more or less stereo type statements on the following lines : (a) That the watch in question was imported into India by a relative who had arrived from East Pakistan. (b) That the watches were presented to him/her by a relative. (c) That the watch was new at the time of presentation but not keeping correct time. (d) That the watch was given to the M/s Kanungo Co. for correction/ repair as M/s Kanungo Co. were known to them for a long time. (e) That he/she was not sure about the watch band as he/she had asked M/s Kanungo Co. to change the band. (f) That the cost for correction had not been settled but had been left to M/s Kanungo Co. (g) That he/she has no documentary evidence whatsoever in support of the watch in question having been legally imported or acquired. (9) Further some parties from whom watches were alleged to have been received for repairs under Repair Receipts produced and which watches were claimed by M/s Kanungo Co. to have been seized o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
