9911796707
TMI Blog1952 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li Bros. indented under their import licence 9,000 dozens optical frames from Messrs. Paul E. Sernau of New York. They sold the goods before arrival to Messrs. Hansraj Shadilal Jain, who in their turn sold them to Messrs. Kodumal Motiram on the 10th of October, 1949. The consignment arrived packed in 30 cases on the 9th of January, 1950 and was cleared on behalf of Messrs. Hassanali Bros. upon payment of customs duties and other charges. It was subsequently discovered that these cases contained not optical frames but goggles. Import of goggles was at this time prohibited and therefore by a notice to show cause addressed to Messrs. Hassanali Bros. the Collector of Customs called upon them to show cause why action should not be taken against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose penalties is inter alia the Customs Collector by virtue of section 182(a). That section states " such confiscation, increased rate of duty or penalty may be "adjudged". It seems to me to be inherent in the use of the word "adjudged" that the authority empowered to adjudge is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and therefore an order made under section 182 of the Sea Customs Act is liable to be quashed on a writ of certiorari. 5.Now, turning next to the provisions of section 167(8), the essence of the offence which is alleged to have been committed in relation to the goods is that they were imported in contravention of import regulations which prevented the import of goggles. The penalty prescribed for the offence is (a) confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry relating to the commission of an offence under section 167(8) before the goods are ordered to be confiscated. His contention is that such persons have a property right in the goods, and they ought not to be deprived of such property right without being given an opportunity of being heard. Now, the only right conferred upon a citizen by the Constitution in respect of his property is that he shall not be deprived of his property save by authority of law; and in this case the authority for depriving a person of his property right in case of confiscation is to be found in the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. I do not find in the Act any duty cast on the Customs officer to search for a person or persons who may be interested in the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Sea Customs Act is concerned in an offence under section 167(8), it is, in my opinion, his duty to give notice to such person to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him as a person concerned in the commission of the offence. 7.Turning next to section 167(37), the offence consists, shortly stated, of giving a wrong description of goods either in the bill of entry or in the shipping bill, and the penalty for such offence is, as in the case of section 167(8), confiscation as also a penalty which may be imposed on every person concerned in any such offence. In so far as the confiscation of goods is concerned, since the essence of the offence is a wrong description of the goods, and such description is given only by the owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods an option, to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the officer thinks fit. " 9.There is no doubt that the provisions of this section are mandatory; and it is admitted that in the present case no such option was given. But this section has been modified for a limited period by a subsequent Act. The Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Section 3, sub-section (1) provides that the Central Government may prohibit, restrict or control the import of any goods. Then sub-section (2) provides : "All goods to which any order under sub-section (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or export has been prohibited or restricted under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and all the provisions of that Act shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements in such bill. Even assuming therefore that it was necessary to give such an option, the petitioner can have no complaint in respect of non-compliance with such provisions. It is only Messrs. Hassanali Bros. who could complain of such non-compliance. 11.The result, therefore, is that the order of the Central Government and of the Board of Revenue and the Customs Collector in so far as it purports to levy a penalty on the petitioner shall be set aside as the penalty was levied without giving any notice to the petitioner. 12.As regards costs, the position is that the petitioner has substantially failed in his petition because the main point urged on his behalf was that the confiscation order was bad. In so far as the order imposed a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
