1952 (6) TMI 1 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the confiscation order and imposition of fine by the Collector of Customs.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Petitioner's suppression of material facts.
4. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution to acts committed before its enactment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the confiscation order and imposition of fine by the Collector of Customs:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 19th May 1950, which confiscated 84 bags of betel nuts and imposed a fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 7 of the Land Customs Act read with Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner argued that he purchased the betel nuts within the Indian Union and provided purchase vouchers and other documents to the Customs authorities. However, the Customs authorities detained the goods, suspecting they were of East Pakistan origin and imported without proper customs permits. The Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation and allowed redemption on payment of a fine plus import duty. The petitioner's appeal to the Central Board of Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Collector's order.

2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner contended that he was not informed of the specific charges against him nor given an opportunity to defend himself, thus violating principles of natural justice. The court examined the correspondence and affidavits, noting that the petitioner and Kalipada were aware of the investigation and had submitted detailed statements and documents. The Customs authorities did not serve a formal charge sheet but provided sufficient information about the detention and investigation of the goods. The court concluded that the Customs authorities, acting judicially or quasi-judicially, were not bound to follow strict procedural rules as in a regular trial, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case. Therefore, the omission to serve a regular charge sheet did not vitiate the proceedings or the order dated 19th May 1950.

3. Petitioner's suppression of material facts:
The court found that the petitioner deliberately suppressed material facts and documents, including letters from the Customs authorities and his own letters, which contradicted the statements made in the petition. The petitioner misrepresented his possession of documentary evidence and the relationship with Kalipada. The court emphasized that a person making an ex parte application must disclose all material facts, and non-disclosure disentitles the petitioner to any relief. The court cited precedents, including Rex v. Income Tax Commissioner, Kensington, and other High Court cases, to support this principle.

4. Applicability of Article 226 of the Constitution to acts committed before its enactment:
The court addressed the argument that the petitioner could not invoke Article 226 for acts committed before the Constitution came into force. The court distinguished the present case from Keshav Menon v. The State of Bombay, noting that the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty, which furnished the cause of action, was made on 19th May 1950, after the Constitution came into force. Therefore, the petitioner had the right to apply for a writ under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands due to deliberate suppression of material facts and misrepresentation. The court also found no violation of principles of natural justice in the Customs authorities' proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with costs awarded to the respondents.