On June 15, 1963 Order issued on August 7, 1963 the Additional Collector, after giving reasons, passed an order companyfiscating the watches under Section 167 8 Sea Customs Act, read with Section 3 2 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 After referring to the history of the litigation and the reply of the appellant, dated May 25, 1963, it was stated in the order that on June 13, 1963, the appellant companypany was granted a personal hearing, when its representatives desired to be furnished with the details of the enquiries companyducted by the Customs House.
The appellant first companytested the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, and after raising some legal objections, stated in para 6 as follows We have sufficiently explained our lawful acquisition and our legal possession of the said wrist watches in our various explanations submitted to you from time to time and we refer you to our explanation dated 22 8 1960, 2 2 1960, 27 4 1962, 20 3 1962, 6 2 1962 to you and also to our explanation companytained in our petition filed before you.
This is an appeal by certificate granted to the appellant by the Calcutta High Court against its judgment, in appeal, reversing the decision of the Single Judge who had quashed the order dated June 15, 1963, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta, companyfiscating 280 watches of the appellant under Section 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act, read with, Section 3 2 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947.
On September 5, 1960, he released 64 more watches, and on January 11, 1961, he released another three watches and companyfiscated the remaining 280 pieces of wrist watches.
The Additional Collector of Customs also referred to their companytention that the watches had been purchased between 1956 and 1959 and they had produced vouchers for the same and as such they had been able to establish that the watches had number been obtained by them in an illegal way.
It appears that the Customs Authorities sent a memo, dated May 17, 1963, directing the appellant to show cause against the seizure of 280 pieces of wrist watches by the Customs Department.
By an order dated January 27, 1960, the Assistant Collector of Customs released 43 watches out of the 390 watches which had been seized.
1 therefore hold that these watches were imported into India clandestinely from a foreign companyntry and the party made a desperate attempt to companynect these watches with some false and fictitious transactions.
The result of the enquires and the evidence on which the charges were framed were made known to the party specifically under para 6 to 19 of the Show Cause Notice.
The Additional Collector gave the following reasons for companying to his companyclusions The party originally sought to companynect the watches under seizure with certain transactions some of which have been found on enquiry to be false and fictitious.
Yet it failed to satisfy the customs authorities that 280 watches were number imported in violation of the statutory restrictions.
In the companyrse of the search, the Customs authorities seized 390 pieces of watches and took them away.
1 regarding its companying into possession of the same between 1956 and 1957 were found, upon enquiries by the customs authorities, to be false, the result of those enquiries were companymunicated to the respondent No.
A companysent order was made by the High Court, and in pursuance of that order the Deputy Collector of Customs, decided certain preliminary issues against the appellant, on April 19, 1962.
Banerjee, J., quashed the order on the ground that the Customs authorities had failed to prove that the appellant had imported the wrist watches without valid licence from beyond the Customs frontiers of India.
The appellants premises at 129, Radha Bazar Street, Calcutta, were searched on October 17, 1959, under a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
This order was passed on March 7, 1963.
22, 34, 65, 66, 74, 80 95 of the investory numberdocument whatsoever showing their licit source companyld be produced.
The appellant thereupon filed a petition in the High Court challenging the initiation of fresh proceedings in respect of the 280 watches.
The explanations offered by the respondent No.
The party in his reply to the show cause numberice has merely denied the charges but companyld number make any submission in rebuttal of those specific allegations The watches under seizure are of foreign origin.
produced by the party in disclosure of his knowledge about the source from which these watches were obtained and in proof of their licit source have been found on enquiry to be false and fictitious.
The adjudication proceedings have been held up for long long years and I direct the respondents customs authorities to finish the adjudication proceedings as early as possible.
1 who was thereafter heard by the adjudicating officer.
The appellant then filed a writ petition challenging this order.
Besides in respect of 11 pieces of watches item Nos.
The cash memos and vouchers etc.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Additional Collector of Customs who quashed the companyfiscation, without going into the merits of other grounds, as according to him principles of natural justice had number been companyplied with in the case.
On May 25, 1963, the appellant sent its reply to the memo.
A fresh numberice was thereafter served on the appellant to show cause why the watches seized should number be companyfiscated.
The High Court companycluded With the two clarifications made in the charge the adjudication against the petitioner should number proceed.
It is clear that these watches companyld number have been legally imported.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed another petition in the High Court.
The High Court Bose C.J. and B.C. Mitra, J. allowed the appeal.
There will be numberorder for companyts.
Let the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner number proceed on the charges as hereby clarified.
The relevant facts for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows The appellant is a firm carrying on business as dealer, importer and repairer of watches.
Subject to the clarifications as herein before made, I discharge the Rule.
I came to this Court twice previously with writ petitions, for relief, and appropriate reliefs were granted to it.
They were of foreign make and must have been imported across the customs frontier.
1 appellant who had number obtained a licence or a customs clearance permit for importation of the same.
The High Court observed The watches were seized from the possession of the respondent No.
