Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1972 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1972 (1) TMI 45 - SC - CustomsWhether the appellant is not guilty of any contravention of Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act and cannot be subjected to the penal provisions of the said Act? Because the firm is not a legal entity, it cannot be a person within the meaning of Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or of Section 167(3), (8) and (37) of the Sea Customs Act, is equally untenable? Held that:- The High Court thought that there is no definition of goods in the General Clauses Act and that contained in the Sale of Goods Act and which excludes money is inapplicable inasmuch as that Act was much later statute than the Sea Customs Act. It is, however, unnecessary to consider this aspect because even if the currency notes are not goods, the restrictions prescribed in Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Act cannot be nullified by Section 23A thereof which incorporates Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act. The High Court was clearly right in holding that once it is found that there has been a contravention of any of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with Sea Customs Act by a firm, the partners of it who are in-charge of its business or are responsible for the conduct of the same, cannot escape liability, unless it is proved by them that the contravention took place without their knowledge or they exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. The charges and expenses incurred in connection with the despatch found in the entries in the books of account of the firm were the same as those relating to the offending package which was being despatched to Hongkong. The freight mentioned in the account slip is the exact amount which appears on the consignment note in respect of that offending package. The amount sought to be sent is half a lakh of rupees which can hardly be within the means of the Cashier, leading to the inescapable inference that the firm through its partners was concerned in the attempt to transgress the restrictions under Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and liable to penal action by virtue of Section 23A under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. On these facts as established and in our view rightly that it was not unreasonable to infer that it was the firm which was interested in sending the currency notes out of India in a clandestine manner.
|