9911796707
TMI Blog1960 (9) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel Traveller' and 's.s. Hoegh Silverbeam' in the beginning of January, 1953. Though in the petition it is mentioned that these steam-ships were mid-stream and the delivery was taken mid-stream it is now admitted that the steamships were at all material times berthed at Alexandra Docks. The Petitioners were desirous of carrying the purchased goods after discharge of the goods from these steamships by their own cargo boat bearing No. 5413 to Tank Bunder for clearing the same for home consumption. It was necessary for the Petitioners in this connection under Section 76 of the Sea customs Act, to obtain a "boat note". Under the section the boat note is compulsorily required to contain particulars of the goods discharged and waterborne by the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds purchased by the Petitioners and unloaded at Tank Bunder, having received certain information, one Nanak Sing, an Assistant Collector of Customs informed the Petitioners at about 11 a.m. on January 5, 1953 that part of these goods had been carried away by the petitioners to a yard owned by them and stocked there so as to avoid payment of import duty in respect of such goods. The case of the Petitioners throughout was and is that they had in all unloaded at Tank Bunder ten lorry loads of dunnage wood and the aggregate quantity of wood unloaded was about 43 tons only. The charge of the department against the Petitioners was that they had unloaded 13 lorry loads and 3 lorry loads of the weight of about 22.69 tons had been carried away direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs and the informants and other parties were supplied to the Petitioners who thereafter submitted their written explanation dated March 24, 1954 to the Assistant Collector of Customs. 5.Thereafter an advocate of the Petitioners appeared before the then Assistant Collector of Customs and requested that he should be permitted to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded in the absence of the Petitioners. That application was made to show the untruth of the facts as contained in the statements furnished by the officers, informants and other witnesses. The Assistant Collector however refused to accede to that request and to give any opportunity to the petitioners and/or their advocate to cross-examine any of the persons who had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this petition must be decided on the footing that the above facts are true. 9By his order dated. September 28, 1959 the 2nd Respondent, the Additional Collector, rejected the appeal. In his order 2nd Respondent recited that at the hearing the Petitioner's advocate repeated the arguments contained in the appeal. He then stated that he had considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and saw no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. This is the only reasoning to be found in the decision of the 2nd Respondent in appeal. 10.The Petitioners challenge the validity of both the above orders inter alia on the ground that both the authorities refused to accede to the request of the Petitioners' Advocate f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customs officer and customs peon. As I have already mentioned above admittedly the petitioners were refused any opportunity to cross-examine the evidence as contained in the statements furnished to the enquiry officers. At the stage of inquiry before the order dated April 7, 1958 and again at the stage of the hearing of the appeal against that order the Petitioner's advocate made requests for allowing an opportunity to the Petitioners for cross-examination of the evidence as contained in the statements of witnesses but the same was refused. In this connection, Mr. Rangnekar for the Respondents contends that in the grounds of appeal as a matter of fact no grievance was made about the failure of the Assistant Collector of Customs to afford o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re statements in respect whereof failure to afford opportunity to cross-examine deprived the Petitioners of all opportunity to prove that their case was true. In the result the conclusion to which I have come is that the order dated April 7, 1958 was entirely nullity. It was therefore not possible for the 2nd Respondent as appellate authority to confirm such an order in appeal without making his own investigations. The appellate authority having been requested to allow opportunity to cross-examine the relevant evidence on the basis whereof findings have been made against the Petitioners also refused that application. In my view it was not possible for the appellate authority merely to confirm without any findings on his own the first order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
