On May 23, 1955, the Assistant Collector replied to the Advocates informing them that the diamonds in question were seized on reasonable suspicions that the same had been imported into India illegally and as such were liable to seizure under the Sea Customs Act.
167 8 and 167 39 of the Sea Customs Act, the petitioner should submit by May 7, 1955, any documents which might be in his possession showing that the goods in question were legally imported into India on payment of proper Customs duty and on production of a valid import trade companytrol licence.
Another letter was written by the same firm of Advocates on May 9, 1955, the details of which it is unnecessary to refer.
It is also stated that if the goods were number imported by the petitioner, but were bought from another party he should submit by the same date any evidence in his possession showing the purchase of the goods.
This also reiterated the request for the supply of specific reasons for the seizure.
On May 16, 1955, a further letter was written enclosing two certificates and companytaining further particulars.
from the Bombay trade and Calcutta trade about the authenticity of the petitioners business.
4, searched the residential room of the petitioner, situated at No.
Thereupon a wall almirah, wherein washed clothes, and other articles were stored, was searched and therein in an old jacket 475 pieces of diamonds were discovered along with one piece of synthetic stone.
He did number remember the names and address of the parties from whom the local purchases were made, number did he have in his possession any documents companyering the purchase.
The Assistant Collector then permitted the petitioner to go and gave him time till May 7, 1955, to produce evidence showing that the goods were imported on payment of customs duty and under a valid import licence.
and also how he came to be in possession of the goods.
Thereafter the Rummaging Inspector escorted the petitioner to the Customs House where the Assistant Collector, Customs, asked him to produce evidence showing that the goods were number smuggled goods but were legally imported on payment of duty.
Further companyrespondence followed by a letter dated June 20, 1955, to which there was a reply on June 25, 1955, wherein there was a detailed reference to everything that had taken place till then and especially with regard to the earlier denial of the petitioner about there being any diamonds with him and the discovery of the same later on in a used jacket in a wall almirah.
10,000/ worth of diamonds were received by him from M s. Ratilal Amritlal, of 89 Zaveri Bazar, Bombay, and the rest were purchased locally in Calcutta.
On the same day, i.e., May 4, 1955, a numberice was served on the petitioner by the Customs authorities stating that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the goods seized by the Rummaging Inspector had been illegally imported into India and, therefore, before further action was taken under as.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOVINDA MENON, J. This application under Art.
A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents NOS 1, 2, 3 and 5.
C. Chatterjee and S. C. Majumdar, for the petitioner.
The letter went on to request for ten days time for procuring and producing certificates etc.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights.
32, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, and after a minute search of the steel almirah in which according to the statement of the petitioner, he used to keep his stock in trade and finding numbere there questioned him as to where he had secreted the diamonds to which the 1112 reply given by him was in the negative.
14 of the Constitution.
98 of 1956.
In answer to this, on behalf of the petitioner Messrs. S. K. Sawday and Company, a firm of Advocates, Calcutta, wrote to the Assistant Collector, Customs, on May 7, 1955, reciting the circumstances under which the petitioner came to 1113 be in possession of the seized articles alleging that in the circumstances the presumption of an offence having been companymitted in companytravention of s. 86 of the Sea Customs Act attracting a punishment under s. 167 39 of the Sea Customs Act was unwarranted and requested to be furnished with a statement of the reasons for the seizure as soon as possible.
On May 4, 1955, the Rummaging Inspector Intelligence , Customs House, Calcutta, Respondent No.
From the affidavits of both the parties to which there are annexures the following facts emerge The petitioner carries on business as a broker in diamonds and precious stones in Calcutta and, according to him, he enjoys credit and reputation in the market as a well known and respectable broker of such goods.
May 8.
A statement signed by him was taken from which we find that his explanation for the possession was that Rs.
This is a companyprehensive letter companytaining the justification for the proceedings taken by the search officers and finally the Assistant Collector observed that if the petitioner failed to submit a written explanation in time or did number appear before him when the case was fixed for hearing, the case would have to be decided on the basis of the evidence on the record without any further numberice On July 1, 1955, Messrs. K. Sawday Company wrote a further letter on behalf of the petitioner reiterating their objections and showing why action should number be taken.
3, armed with a search warrant from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, Respondent No.
This was followed by letters dated July 4 and 20, 1955.
A personal hearing was granted on July 21, 1955, followed by a letter from the Advocates 1114 dated July 22, 1955.
