TMI Blog1964 (2) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 1392 (S.C.)] in which we have pronounced our judgment today, four other civil appeals and four writ petitions were also placed for hearing, because they raise a common question about the construction of Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act, and we propose to deal with them by this common judgment. 2.We will first take Civil Appeal No. 803 of 1962 which has been filed by special leave by the British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. against the decision of the Central Board of Revenue pronounced on January 7, 1960, as well as the decision of the Central Government pronounced on May 27, 1961. The offending ship is `Santhia' and the fine imposed is Rs. 42,500/-. So far as this appeal is concerned, for the reasons given by us in dismissing Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order was challenged by the appellant by a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The said petition was dismissed by Sinha, J., on September 11, 1958, and an appeal under the Letters Patent preferred by the appellant was also dismissed on July 7, 1961. It is against this order of the Letters Patent Bench that the appellant has come to this Court in the present appeal. 5.Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1963 has been preferred by the Everett Orient Line Incorporated against the order of the Collector of Customs imposing a fine of Rs. 26 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of the vessel `Rutheverett'. The order was passed on October 1, 1960. The appellant has come to this court by special leave directly against this order. 6.The remaining three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals or revisions have been pursued by the aggrieved party. We have already seen that against the order of confiscation and fine passed by the Collector of Customs, an appeal is competent, and against the decision of the appellate authority, a revision also lies. That being so, we would have hesitated to entertain these appeals if each one of them had come separately for hearing before us. In fact, the question as to whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could be successfully invoked by a party immediately after an order is passed against him by the Collector of Customs under Section 167(12A) and Section 183, does not appear to have been argued before the Calcutta High Court when it entertained the writ proceedings from which Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case, however, these writ petitions were presumably admitted because they raised a question of some importance which had already been raised by some appeals properly brought before this Court under Article 136, and so, we have allowed the counsel to argue these writ petitions on the question of construction alone. 9.Besides, it appears that these writ petitions and C.A. No. 299 of 1963 purport to raise a question about the validity of Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act and that may have weighed in favour of admitting the said matters : but as we have held in Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1962 [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1392 (S.C.)] the foreign companies whose vessels have contravened Section 52A and in respect of which penalties have been imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
