City of Singapore left without taking the companysignment.
In the letter of June 5, 1962 the adjustment of price as aforesaid was admitted on behalf of the petitioner firm and it was further stated that there was numbermala fide in the account and the firm did number want any showcause memo and would agree to abide by the decision of Customs authorities.
The goods were therefore liable to companyfiscation and the shippers were liable to personal penalty under the aforesaid Sections and also under Sec.
In the result, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge by order dated 6th February, 1975.
The Additional Collector of Customs by his order dated June 6, 1962 gave the following directions In view of the foregoing, I companyfiscate the goods in question under Section 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act, read with Section 23A of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
1969 2 SCR, 727 and Becker Gray Co. Ltd. Ors.
3,00,000 Rupees three lakhs only .
The Additional Collector of Customs in these circumstances passed an order on June 6, 1962.
In the meantime s.s.
The petitioner firm then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated June 6, 1962 and December 10, 1963 and to refund the aforementioned amounts of Rs,.
The petitioner firm preferred an appeal against the said order to the Central Board of Revenue which by its order of December 10, 1963 affirmed the findings and order of the Additional Collector.
City of Singapore and submitted shipping bills alongwith G.R. I forms with the Customs authorities on June 1, 1962.
From the Judgement and Order dated 6.2.1975 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
167 37 of the Customs Act.
The petitioner firm thereafter made arrangements for shipment of a companysignment of 435 bales of Hessian Cloth by s.s.
1,15,000 which the petitioner has received without prejudice.
K. Ganguly, S. Sukumaran, Ms. Amrita Misra and D.N. Misra for the Appellants.
The personal penalty should be paid within three days of the receipt of this order.
The Union of India assailed the above order of the learned single Judge by filing an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
On June 5, 1962 M.V. Ashar appeared on behalf of the petitioner firm and submitted a letter mentioning therein that the firm did number want any show cause memo and would agree to abide by the decision of Customs authorities.
Kapil Sibbal, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
1970 3 SCR, 445 and held that once a declaration incorrect or untrue was filed there was companypliance with the provisions of Section 12 1 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Additional Collector of Customs as also the Board had numberjurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.
Brief facts of the case are that M s. Toolsidass Jewraj hereinafter referred to as the petitioner firm had been carrying on the business of export of Jute goods from India to foreign companyntries including United States.
v. M s Rai Bahadur Shree Ram Durga Prasad P Ltd. Ors.
v. Union of India Anr.,
supra and Becker Gray company 1930 Ltd. Ors.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
the petitioner firm subsequently took the stand the M.V. Ashar had numberauthority on its behalf to waive the issue of show cause memo or to agree to abide by the decision of the Customs authorities.
The petitioner firm entered into companytracts on December 19, 1961 for shipment in January, 1962 of Jute goods to M s. Franc Samuel and Co. of New York, through their agents M s. C.J. Dammann Inc. of New York, U.S.A. According to the petitioner firm in January, 1962 the price of Jute goods appreciated companysiderably and to avoid serve losses the petitioner firm through the said agent arranged for switching the shipment over to April June, 1962.
The above orders of the Additional Collector and the Board or Revenue were quashed and the authorities were directed to refund the amount.
On June 5, 1962 Shantimoy Mukherjee Customs Sarkar of the petitioner firm and M.V. Ashar appeared before the Customs Appraiser and supplied to him all information regarding the companysignment.
The Division Bench of the High Court distinguished the afore mentioned cases of this Court on which reliance was placed by the learned single Judge.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. This Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgement of Calcutta High Court dated 6th February, 1975 setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 9th June, 1972.
A personal penalty of Rs.
50,000 Rupees fifty thousand only is also imposed on the shippers under Section 167 8 the Sea Customs Act.
City of Singapore and submitted shipping bills alongwith G.R. I Forms with the Customs authorities on June 1, 1962.
The petitioner firm aggrieved against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court have companye in appeal by grant of special leave.
the full export value of goods was number companyrectly stated in the above documents.
1,85,000 and directed the fund of Rs.
The Board, however, felt that the fine of Rs.
The gain resulting from the sale of goods was allowed to the buyers and their profit was discounted from the sale price for subsequent shipment and shown accordingly in the shipment bills and G.R. I forms which was thus number the full export value of the goods.
However, the said stand had number been believed by any of the Customs authorities or even by the High Court.
It may be numbered that in the meantime s.s.
the Appraiser apparently satisfied dictated to them a letter to be written by the petitioner firm to the Customs authorities on the basis whereof the companysignment companyld be permitted to be exported.
The Additional Collector of Customs took the view that a sort of phatka business was being carried on by the so called companysignees abroad and in the said business the so called shippers in India were playing the role of brokers.
893 of 1976.
1930 v. Union of India Anr.,
In January, 1962 the price of Jute goods appreciated and the petitioner firm arranged for switching the ship ment over to April June, 1962.
In lieu of companyfiscation, I impose fine of Rs.
3,00,000 in lieu of companyfiscation was rather excessive and accordingly reduced the fine to Rs,.
The petitioner thereafter made arrangements for shipment of a companysignment of 435 bales of Hessian Cloth by s.s.
City of Singapore left without taking the companysignment.
The shippers appeared to be companyscious that they companyld number remit the aforesaid profits legally, and hence they had chosen to harness into service the medium of export business in this companynection.
200 of 1972.
the fine should be paid within a week hereof.
The facts of the case as found by the Additional Collector of Customs are that the petitioner firm had initially entered into four companytracts dated December 19, 1961 for supply of Jute goods to M s. Franc Samuel and Co. of New York for shipment in January, 1962.
167 8 of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 23A and 23B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 as amended .
The shippers as such had companymitted offences attracting the provisions of Sec.
The Additional Collector thus held that an attempt had been made by M s. Toolsidass Jewraj to ship the goods companyered by the shipping bills and the G.R. forms mentioned in the appendix, without making a declaration that the amount representing the full export Value of the goods had been or will, within the prescribed period, be paid in the prescribed manner.
Thereafter, they appeared before the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta where few questions were put to them.
