TMI Blog1962 (3) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing the impugned order. It was urged by him in support of his petition, inter alia, that Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act was unconstitutional in that it infringed the appellant's fundamental right under Article 19(l) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. It was also urged that on the merits, the said impugned order was not justified by the relevant statutory provisions of the Sea Customs Act read with the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The High Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the validity of Section 178A and held that the order directing the confiscation of five bars of gold was valid. The High Court, however, took the view that the direction issued by the Collector of Central Excise imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellant was invalid and so the said direction was set aside and a writ issued in that behalf. The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the said certificate that he has come to this Court for challenging the correctness of the order passed by the High Court by which the confiscation of gold in question has been held to be valid. 2. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had not been rebutted by the appellant and so, he proceeded to pass the impugned order confiscating gold and imposing on the appellant a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000. It is in the light of these facts that the three contentions raised by Mr. Bobde fall to be considered in the present appeal. 4. The first argument raised in support of the appeal is that the confiscation of gold is not justified under Section 167(8) because it has been found by the High Court that the appellant is not a person concerned in the offence of importation of the said gold. It appears that in dealing with the question as to whether the personal penalty imposed upon the appellant is valid or not, the High Court has relied on two considerations. It has held that the jurisdiction of the officer to impose a personal penalty was confined to the imposition of a penalty only upto Rs. 1,000 and no more, and in support to this conclusion the High Court relied on certain observations made by this Court in F.N. Roy v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1975 SCR 1151 at p. 1158. This question has been recently considered by this Court in M/s. Ranchhoddas Atmaram v. Union of India, AIR 1961 S.C. 935 and it has been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person shall bring or send into India from any place outside India any gold, coin, gold bullion, gold sheets or gold ingot, whether refined or not. Thus, bringing into India gold from outside is prohibited by this notification unless the said gold is brought with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank. Section 23 of the said Act provides for penalty and procedure in respect of contravention of its provisions and rules, orders or direction issued thereunder. Section 23A provides that without prejudice to the provisions of Section 23 or to any other provision contained in the said Act, the restrictions imposed by sub-sections. (1) and (2) of Section 8 shall be deemed to have been imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, except that Section 183 thereof shall have effect as if for the word "shall" therein the word "may" was substituted. It would, thus, be noticed that the combined effect of the aforesaid provisions of the two Acts and the relevant notification is that the notification of 1948 has the force of a notification issued under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and the appellant had no opportunity to cross-examine him. Then, as regards Marotrao and Rambhau, their statements were intended to show that the appellant's case that he had got the gold melted through them was not true. At the enquiry, the appellant gave up this stand and did not adhere to his earlier version that the gold in question had been melted with the assistance of the said witnesses. Since it became unnecessary to consider that plea because of the change of attitude adopted by the appellant, it was hardly necessary to allow the appellant to cross-exmine the said two witnesses. Their version on the point was no longer inconsistent with the subsequent case set up by the appellant. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument that the enquiry held by the Collector of Central Excise was conducted unfairly and the procedure adopted at the said enquiry was inconsistent with the requirements of natural justice. 8. The last contention raised by Mr. Bobde was that there is nothing on record to show that the seizure of gold from the appellant had been effected by the officer concerned acting on a reasonable belief that the said gold was smuggled. It would be recalled that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
