9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (4) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spindle oil and consigned the same in the name of the said Netherlands Bank, Calcutta. Along with the said consignment a set of Bill of Ladings giving full description of 1000 drums of spindle oil with viscosity 30/40, a certificate of quality stating that the oil is warranted as lubricating oil and guaranteed to conform to the specification given therein showing the viscosity at 10°F 30/40 flash point 205/215 of minimum, and also a certificate of origin by New Orleans Association of Commerce, were all sent to the said Bank. The goods arrived at the Port of Calcutta in February 1949. The petitioner through its clearing agents, Messers J. C. Bose and Sons submitted a bill of entry on the 3rd of March 1949 in the Import Department of the Customs. On the 8th March, 1949, a letter of guarantee was executed by the petitioner to its Bankers whereby in consideration of being allowed to take immediate delivery of the goods they agreed to pay the difference between the duty charged at 0-2-6 per Imperial gallon and which will be leviable if it is decided by the Customs authorities to assess the oil at a higher rate. On the 10th of March the Bill of Entry in duplicate along with the invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged if a copy of the chemical analysis could be sent to them for ascertaining how the Customs Authorities had come to the findings that the oil in question was not lubricating oil at all but mineral oil not otherwise specified and it was further requested in the said letter that the petitioner might be given a personal hearing at the convenience of the Customs Authorities before any final order was passed. 4.On the 12th June 1950 a reminder was sent on behalf of the petitioner again asking them for a copy of the test report and also for a sealed sample of the goods if any was available but no reply was sent by the Customs Authorities either to the letter of the 16th of May or to the letter of the 12th of June 1950, nor was any copy of the test report supplied to the petitioner or their representative, Messrs. S. K. Sawday and Co. But on the 16th of June 1950, the respondent No. 1 passed an order imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 2,42,001 on the petitioner on the ground that the goods imported were classifiable under item 27(3) and not under item 27(8) of the Indian Customs Tariff. On the 26th of July 1950, Messrs. S. K. Sawday and Co. pointed out by their letter of that date tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board v. Arlidge - (1915) A.C. 120. 7.In the case of Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Assistant Collector of Customs - (87 C.L.J. 201) I have dealt with in some detail about the duties imposed upon the Customs authorities in the matter of adjudging confiscation or penalty under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. I have pointed out that the Sea Customs Act does not lay down any procedure for making adjudications as to confiscation and imposition of penalty and the Customs Authorities are the masters of their own procedure. It may be that they have no power to administer oath and so they may not take oral evidence, and they need not adopt the judicial methods which may be entirely unsuitable and are likely to produce delay and expense. The law requires that the substantial requirements of justice shall not be violated. The Customs Authorities can obtain information in any way they think best but they should give a fair opportunity to those who are the parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statements prejudicial to their view. Merely calling upon a party to submit a written statement of case and proceeding to give a decision upon a perusal thereof may n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocal enquiry. A rule was framed for such local enquiry. After the closing order the Respondent gave notice of Appeal to the Board. The Board directed a local enquiry. A public enquiry was held. The Respondent sent only Expert's Report to the Board and intimated that he should decline to attend enquiry and he did not appeal or tender evidence. The Board confirmed the closing order. 10.The Respondent thereafter again applied for determining the closing order on the ground that he had effected repairs to the premises and made it habitable. The Council refused the application. The Respondent appealed to the Board. A second public enquiry was held. The Respondent was present this time with his solicitor and witnesses at the enquiry. The Respondent's solicitor argued the case and the Respondent and his witnesses gave evidence. The Respondent wanted to be heard orally over again before the officer deciding the appeal. It was held that the Respondent was not entitled to have a second oral hearing as the rules framed did not contemplate a subsequent hearing before the Board. The facts of this case are, therefore, distinguishable from the facts of the case before me. 11.In the proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
