TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determine the head or entry under which any particular commodity falls. Of course, if a construction adopted by the authority regarding the concerned entry were perverse, or grossly irrational, then the Court could and would undoubtedly interfere. In the present case the High Court has held that the view of the Customs Officials could not be considered perverse and has declined to set aside the impugned order on that score. 2. Even at this stage it is appropriate to quote the order under challenge which runs : M/s. The security and Finance Ltd., Delhi imported from U.K. the above-mentioned goods for which they did not possess a valid Import licence issued under Serial No. 301/Pt. IV of Import Trade Control Schedule. The importation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sd/- Dy. Collector of Customs" Even so, the Court quashed the latter limb of the order under challenge which had imposed penalty in lieu of confiscation and, on top of it, directed payment of the import duty ordinarily leviable for the auto cycle pedals imported. 3. The only ground which led to this fatal consequence was that the authorities, acting under Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878) (for short, the Act), had no further power to direct the importer-petitioner i.e. the respondent, to pay excess duty which represents the difference between what is leviable for motor vehicles spares and auto cycles pedals. Aggrieved by this view of the limitation on the powers of the Collector of Customs the appellant, i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r violation of the scheme of prohibition and control. Once this distinction and duality are remembered, the interpretative process simplifies itself. 6. Admittedly, the respondent imported pedals uncoverd by any licence. Two legal consequences followed. The importation attracted duty which any importer, licit or illicit, had to pay the moment customs barrier was crossed. Secondly, the commission of the offence of importing pedals without a licence caught the offender in the coils of Section 167, entry 8, inviting the jurisdiction of the authority prescribed under Section 182 to confiscate the goods or, alternatively, to impose a fine in lieu of confiscation, under Section 183. Of course, if confiscation is resorted to, the title vests in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operational in this context. In short, the obligation under Section 20 is independent of the liability under Section 183. The order, dual in character, although clubbed together in a single document, is therefore valid in entirety. Even so, the confusion has been caused by the Deputy Collector failing to keep distinct the two powers and the two liabilities and thereby leading to avoidable jumbling. 9. Shri Javali rightly exposed the order impugned to the actinic light to criticism by pointing out that this rolled up order suffers from several infirmities, apart from its unspeaking brevity. The Deputy Collector does not state that he is levying duty on the importer qua importer under Section 20. He does grievously err in the first breath c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court was in error. 11. The line of reasoning which has appealed to us is echoed in a decision of the Madras High Court reported as Collector of Customs v. H.S. Mehra, AIR 1964 Mad. 504. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J., speaking for the Bench, has explained the legal position clearly and we agree with it. The decisions of this Court were referred to before the High Court and, indeed, the decision of the High Court proceeded on the footing that those two decisions concluded the matter. The Madras decision distinguished and for right reasons. If we may say so with respect those two rulings of this Court, they do not apply to the facts of the situation before us. On the other hand, both those cases deal with quantities of gold seized from person as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gled gold with retrospective effect. What is more, if it could, there would be no offence under Section 167, entry 8, and the order of confiscation itself would be bad. As to the second condition of payment of customs duty, there was no finding by what means the gold was smuggled-by sea or by land and therefore it was difficult to see how Section 88 which was sought to be pressed into service could be of any help. Indeed, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Hormasji Elavia v. Union of India had been brought to notice of the learned Judges, where customs duty was held payable under Section 88 of the Sea Customs Act, but it was distinguished on the score that in that case the goods had been tracked down as smuggled through the port of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
