1996 (8) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the said oil had been imported in containers made of stainless steel, which was a banned item, but which had been painted over to give the impression that they were made of mild steel?

Held that:- The High Court noticed that the appellants' allegation was that the stainless steel containers were painted over to suppress their true nature, but it took the view that the respondents were not required to disclose the nature or price of containers. We do think that the High Court ought to have taken some note of the significance of painting of stainless steel. If the stainless steel containers were painted, and so painted as to resemble mild steel containers, there can be little doubt that the intention was to slip them through the Customs.

Certainly, the High Court ought not to have entered into the thicket of evidence. Evidence was something for the authorities hearing the parties under Sections 28 and 124 to accept and weigh. We do not approve of stultifying, in exercise of powers under Article 226, an investigation, still at the show-cause stage, by going into facts. Also the High Court in any event, ought not to have allowed the writ petition without reserving liberty to the appellants to proceed against the respondents under Section 130 which, as the High Court looked at it, was the appropriate course of action.The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court is set aside.