9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk paid the price of the goods amounting to Rs. 11,051.40. 3. Before the goods could be cleared from the port of Calcutta, the petitioner received a communication from the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement, Calcutta, dated November 19, 1953, in which it was stated that it had been found that the petitioner did not possess valid import licence for the goods and requiring him to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated and action taken against the petitioner under Section 167, Item 8 of the Sea Customs Act. 4. The communication also enquired if the petitioner wanted to be heard in person. The petitioner submitted in answer a written explanation stating that the Zip Chains imported by him were chains of the kind free import of which had been permitted by the notification of March 16, 1953 and therefore no licence to import them was necessary. He was thereafter again asked by the Customs authorities whether he wanted a personal hearing to which he replied that he did not. 5. Thereafter on December 25, 1953, the Collector of Customs made an order confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the petitioner. This order bore an endorsement that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port, carriage coastwise or shipment as ships' stores of goods of any specified description; (b) ............................ (2) All goods to which any order under sub-section (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or export has been prohibited or restricted under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (8 of 1978), and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, except that Section 183 thereof shall effect as if for the word "shall" therein the word "may" were substituted." 11. It is admitted that the Imports and Exports (Control) Act applies to the goods with which we are concerned and in this case the action that was taken was by virtue of this Act. That being so Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act became applicable because of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and it could hence be applied only as modified by the latter Act. 12. So applied the section did not make it obligatory on the Customs authorities when ordering confiscation, to give an option to the owner to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation but gave them a discretion whether to do so or not. The order of confiscation was not therefore bad even though it had not given th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67. The offences mentioned in the first column of the following schedule shall be punishable to the extent mentioned in the third column of the same with reference to such offences respectively : Offences Sections of the Act to which offence has reference Penalties 8. If any goods, the importation or exportation of which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or under Chapter IV of this Act, be imported into or exported from India contrary to such prohibition or restriction. 18 & 19 Such goods shall be liable to confiscation; any person concerned in any such offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods, or not exceeding one thousand rupees. 18. Chapter IV of the Sea Customs Act contains Section 19. It has to be remembered that Section 3(2) of the Act of 1947 states that all goods to which any order under sub-section (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import has been prohibited under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act. Admittedly sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act of 1947 applies to the goods with which this case is concerned. 19. Under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1947 the import of these goods is to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory provision and therefore it must go out of the statute book as a whole or not at all. This contention on behalf of the petitioner must therefore fail. 25. Learned Counsel said that Section 183 was bad also for the reason that it left it to the uncontrolled discretion of the Customs authorities to decide the quantum of the fine to be imposed in lieu of confiscation. On the facts of this case, it is an academic argument. Even if it was right the entire Section 113 would have to be ignored but that would not have the effect of making the order of confiscation passed in this case invalid. All that the petitioner is concerned with is to show that the order of confiscation was bad. 26. The present argument does not touch that point and therefore it is not necessary to consider it at all. Another similar argument was that Section 167, Item (8) of the Sea Customs Act itself offended Article 14 in that it left to the uncontrolled discretion of the Customs authorities to decide the amount of the penalty to be imposed. The section makes it clear that the maximum penalty that might be imposed under it is Rs. 1,000. The discretion that the section gives must be exercised within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terials on which such a view could be formed. It appears that the petitioner as the Manager of a firm called Federal Clearing Agency had received a communication from the Customs authorities on 30-7-1953, that Zip Chains were not covered by the notification of 16th March, 1953, and within a fortnight of that communication he had placed the orders for identical goods which he now claims to be within the notification. 33. It was not unreasonable for the Customs authorities to think that the petitioner had deliberately imported the goods in breach of the order of the Government and without specific licence for that purpose, and on that ground to think it proper not to give him the option. This would be so even if it was assumed that in the dispute with the Public Relations Officer the petitioner was in the right. 34. It was then stated that the petitioner had not been given personal hearing of the appeal that he preferred to the Central Board of Revenue and the application in revision to the Government. But there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to a personal hearing. Furthermore, the appeal was out of time. The memorandum of appeal to the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
