TMI Blog1960 (10) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reason to doubt the correctness of the statements of fact in regard to this matter made in the orders of the Customs authorities. If so, it follows that the finding of the Customs authorities that the appellant purchased the said items, which were smuggled goods, should prevail. The order of confiscation of these five items will, therefore, stand. Appeal partly allowed. - 153 of 1956 - - - Dated:- 3-10-1960 - Chief Justice Mr. B.P. Sinha, Mr. Justice J.L. Kapur, Mr. Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, Mr. Justice K. Subba Rao and Mr. Justice K.N. Wanchoo [Judgment per : Subba Rao, J.]. - This appeal by certificate is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature of the State of Punjab dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant is at present a resident of Barmer in the State of Rajasthan. But before 1947 he was living in a place which is now in Pakistan. On June 22, 1951, the Deputy Superintendent, Land Customs Station, Barmer, conducted a search of the appellant's house and recovered therefrom the following ten articles : Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted the payment of import duty leviable on all the items together with other charges before the goods were taken out of customs control. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue agreed with the Collector of Central Excise that the onus of proving the import of the goods in question was on the appellant. In regard to Items 1 to 5, it rejected the plea of the appellant mainly on the basis of a statement alleged to have been made by him at the time of seizure of the said articles. In the result the appeal was dismissed. The revision filed by the appellant to the Central Government was also dismissed on August 28, 1953. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab but it was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on November 3, 1954. Hence this appeal. 3. It would be convenient to deal with this appeal in two parts - one in regard to Items 1 to 5 and the other in regard to Items 6 to 10. 4. The decision in regard to Items 1 to 5 turns purely on the question of onus. The Collector of Central Excise as well as the Central Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act No. XXI of 1955 whereas the order of confiscation of the goods in question was made on January 18, 1952. The section is prospective in operation and cannot govern the said order. 7. Nor does Section 5 of the Land Customs Act apply to the present case. Under Section 5(1) of the said Act, "Every person desiring to pass any goods..... by and, out of or into any foreign territory shall apply in writing..... for a permit for the passage thereof, to the Land Customs Officer, incharge of a Land Customs station.....". By sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act, if the requisite duty has been paid or the goods have been found by the Land Customs Officer to be free of duty, the Land Customs Officer is empowered to grant a permit. Under sub-section (3) thereof, "Any Land Customs Officer, duly empowered by the Chief Customs authority in this behalf, may require any person in charge of any goods which such Officer has reason to believe to have been imported, or to be about to exported, by land from, or to, any foreign territory to produce the permit granted for such goods; and any such goods which are dutiable and which are unaccompanied by a permit or do not correspond with the spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before closing this aspect of the case, some observations have to be made in respect of the manner in which the statement given by the appellant when the goods were seized was used against him by the Customs authorities. It would be seen from the order of the Collector of Central Excise as well as that of the Central Board of Revenue that they had relied upon the statement alleged to have been made by him at the time the search was made in his house in order to reject his case that he brought some of the items of goods into India in the year 1947. The appellant in his reply to show cause notice complained that his statement was taken in English, that he did not know what was recorded and that his application for inspection and for the grant of a copy of his statement was not granted to him. It does not appear from the records that he was given a copy of the statement or that he was allowed to inspect the same. In the circumstances we must point out that the Customs authorities were not justified to rely upon certain alleged discrepancies in that statement to reject the appellant's subsequent version. If they wanted to rely upon it they should have given an opportunity to the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is liable to the penalty under Section 7(1)(c) of the Land Customs Act, 1924. The said section reads : "Section 7(1) : Any person who - * * * * (c) aids in so passing or conveying any goods, or, knowing that any goods have been so passed or conveyed, keeps or conceals such goods or permits or procures them to be kept or concealed, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding, where the goods are not dutiable, fifty or, where the goods or any of them are dutiable, one thousand rupees, and any dutiable goods in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation." In this case the finding is that the appellant with the knowledge that the goods had been smuggled into India kept the goods, and, therefore, he was liable to penalty under that section. We hold that the penalty was rightly imposed on him. 12. It is then contended that the Collector of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to impose conditions for the release of the confiscated goods. The Collector of Central Excise in his order says, "In addition the import duty leviable on all these items together with other charges, if any payable, should be paid and necessary formalities g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
