9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocates for the petitioner and of Mr. R. G. Rajan for Government Pleader for the Respondent the Court made the following order :- 2.In July, 1957, 75 packages of electric bulbs arrived in Madras harbour by s. s. Nachisan Maru. In the bills of entry relating to these packages, the bulbs were said to be decoration bulbs of 6.5 volts. Twelve different importers, of whom the petitioner was one, presented bills of entry relating to these goods. The clearing agent of the petitioner claimed 20 out of the 75 packages that had arrived. Some of the cases were examined and the Customs Authorities made some enquiries. These, according to the counter affidavit "revealed that the bulbs imported as decorative bulbs were actually cycle dynamo bulb and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there had been a mis-declaration of the goods within the meaning of S. 167(37) of the Sea Customs Act. In consequence, a second notice, dated 3-2-1958 was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under S. 167(8), S. 167(37) and S. 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. In his reply dated 10-2-1958 the petitioner disclaimed factual knowledge of the contents of packages and repudiated responsibility therefor. There was also the plea that the goods had been mixed up. Notices were sent to the eleven other importers to whom the 75 packages related. None of them came forward to identify his packages. The Department thereupon issued a summons to the petitioner under S. 171-A of the Sea Customs Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son and that therefore he could not be compelled to give evidence. But in a memorandum filed in this Court, it has been explicitly stated that this portion of the notice "may be deleted and is hereby cancelled." That is tantamount to an explicit statement by the Department that there is no intention at this stage to proceed against the petitioner in a criminal court. He cannot, therefore, be said to be a person accused of an offence. 5.Mr. Ramaprasada Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, next contended that it was not competent of the Assistant Collector to issue the summons in question. The Assistant Collector purported to act under S. 171-A. That would apply only when he is making an enquiry "in connection with the smuggling of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that it is not specifically alleged anywhere that the goods had been smuggled and that in the absence of such an allegation, no summons could possibly be issued. I can find no foundation for this argument in S. 171-A. The purpose of that section is to empower the customs officers to summon persons and examine them in relation to any goods which they reasonably believe to have been smuggled. Mr. Ramaprasada Rao suggested that such a view would enable the customs officers to use their power in a mala fide manner. The answer to this is that we ordinarily presume that officers entrusted with certain powers would exercise them in a proper and legitimate way. In cases where they are abused, the persons affected thereby have always relief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
