Mcleod and Company Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta
J. C. Shah, J.1. The Collector of Customs, purporting to act under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- on goods covered by Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2127 and 2085, and imposed a personal penalty on M/s. McLeod & Co. Ltd. of Rs. 7, 00, 000/-. In respect of goods covered by Shipping Bill No. 788, the Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. He imposed another penalty of Rs. 1, 000/- under Section 167(37)(c) on M/s. McLeod & Co. Ltd. and a personal penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 167(3). The Central Board of Excise & Customs reduced the penalty in respect of Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2084, 2127 and 2085 from Rs. 5, 00, 000/- to Rs. 4, 00, 000/- and reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 7, 00, 000/- to Rs. 3, 50, 000/-, and in respect of Shipping Bill No. 788 it reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 5, 00, 000/- to Rs. 50, 000/-. It confirmed the penalty under Section 167(37)(c) and vacated the order imposing personal penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 167(3).2. Mr. Daphtary, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that the penalty of Rs. 7, 50, 000/- in respect of Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2084, 2127 and 2085 imposed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and of Rs. 50, 000/- in respect of Shipping Bill No. 788 is illegal in view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeals Nos. 45-49 of 1968 decided on 19-11-1968). Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam, for the Union of India, and Mr. Bindra, for the Collector of Customs, contend that the principle of the judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) applies to the facts of the present case but they ask us to send the case to a larger Bench for reconsideration of that decision. It is urged that the decision of this Court in the case cited above is likely to affect several other cases which are pending before the Customs Authorities.3. We do not see any reason to accede to this request. This Court has considered the matter in some detail. It is true that there was difference of opinion and the judgment was by a majority of the Court but we will not be justified in lightly ignoring the judgment of this Court which has been given after full consideration of the merits of the dispute.
1[ds]3. We do not see any reason to accede to this request. This Court has considered the matter in some detail. It is true that there was difference of opinion and the judgment was by a majority of the Court but we will not be justified in lightly ignoring the judgment of this Court which has been given after full consideration of the merits of the dispute.
### Instruction:
Predict the outcome of the case proceeding (1 for acceptance, 0 for rejection) and subsequently provide an explanation based on significant sentences in the proceeding.

### Input:
J. C. Shah, J.1. The Collector of Customs, purporting to act under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- on goods covered by Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2127 and 2085, and imposed a personal penalty on M/s. McLeod & Co. Ltd. of Rs. 7, 00, 000/-. In respect of goods covered by Shipping Bill No. 788, the Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. He imposed another penalty of Rs. 1, 000/- under Section 167(37)(c) on M/s. McLeod & Co. Ltd. and a personal penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 167(3). The Central Board of Excise & Customs reduced the penalty in respect of Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2084, 2127 and 2085 from Rs. 5, 00, 000/- to Rs. 4, 00, 000/- and reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 7, 00, 000/- to Rs. 3, 50, 000/-, and in respect of Shipping Bill No. 788 it reduced the personal penalty from Rs. 5, 00, 000/- to Rs. 50, 000/-. It confirmed the penalty under Section 167(37)(c) and vacated the order imposing personal penalty of Rs. 500/- under Section 167(3).2. Mr. Daphtary, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that the penalty of Rs. 7, 50, 000/- in respect of Shipping Bills Nos. 8072, 2084, 2127 and 2085 imposed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs and of Rs. 50, 000/- in respect of Shipping Bill No. 788 is illegal in view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. and Ors. (Civil Appeals Nos. 45-49 of 1968 decided on 19-11-1968). Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam, for the Union of India, and Mr. Bindra, for the Collector of Customs, contend that the principle of the judgment in Union of India and Ors. v. R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. and Ors. (supra) applies to the facts of the present case but they ask us to send the case to a larger Bench for reconsideration of that decision. It is urged that the decision of this Court in the case cited above is likely to affect several other cases which are pending before the Customs Authorities.3. We do not see any reason to accede to this request. This Court has considered the matter in some detail. It is true that there was difference of opinion and the judgment was by a majority of the Court but we will not be justified in lightly ignoring the judgment of this Court which has been given after full consideration of the merits of the dispute.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
3. We do not see any reason to accede to this request. This Court has considered the matter in some detail. It is true that there was difference of opinion and the judgment was by a majority of the Court but we will not be justified in lightly ignoring the judgment of this Court which has been given after full consideration of the merits of the dispute.
