The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings initiated by the respondents against the appellants were quashed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment and order dated 11 December, 1969.
From some documents seized during the raid and statements recorded, it appeared that there was a companyspiracy between the respondents and some of the crew members of certain vessels where it was agreed that the respondents would look after and maintain the families of the crew members in India while they were abroad, would advance them money and the crew members would draw their wages abroad in foreign currency and purchase with those moneys second hand typewriters, adding and calcu lating machines and then bring them to India and deliver them to the respondents after clearance under the companyces sions provided in the Baggage Rules in order to circumvent the restrictions imposed under the Import Trade Control Regulations.
The goods were seized on 5/7 May, 1966 and numberices were due to issue under s. 124 a of the Customs Act, 1962 within six months from that date.
The appellants appealed to the Appellate Bench and the Appellate Bench of the High Court by judgment dated 31 July, 1970 allowed the appeal in part, quashing the order of extension dated 3 November, 1966 and directing the appel lants to restore the machines and docu ments seized from the respondents.
On 3 November, 1966, the Additional Collector granted an extension of time for a further six months in terms of the proviso to s. 110 2 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Customs authorities were permitted to initiate and companyplete such other proceed ings against the, respondents as were open to them in law.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.70 of the Calcut ta High Court in Appeal No.
On 18 April, 1967, the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court at Calcutta challenging the proceedings initiated against them by the customs authorities including the seizure of the machines.
Meanwhile, the Subordinate Offi cers, Customs Department, showed cause to the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta who had the same powers under the Act as the Collector for granting an extension of time for serving the show cause numberice.
On 11 December, 1968 a learned Single Judge of the High Court repelled the companytention of the appellants that the proceeding was administrative in nature and held that the order of extension to be made under s. 110 2 of the Customs Act was a quasi judicial order and as the order had been made ex parte and without numberice to the owner of the goods it was in breach of the principles of Natural justice and therefore void.
The appellants number appeal to this Court in so far as the judgment and order of the Appellate Bench proceeds against them.
It appeared that during the period 1961 to 1965 about 200 pieces of typewriters, adding and calculating machines had been acquired by the respondents for a sum of about Rupees one lakh and out of which forty six had been sold.
On 7 May, 1966, the Customs Offi cers searched the residence and business premises of Messrs. Central Typewriter Company and recovered several typewriters and calculating and adding machines.
29 of 1969.
On 6 December, 1966 the Assistant Collector of Customs issued numberice to each of the respondents calling upon him to show cause why the said seized machines should number be company fiscated under s. 111 d and s. 111 o of the Customs Act, 1962 read with s.3 2 of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and why penal action should number be taken against the respondents under s. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor general, A.K. Gan guli, P. Parmeshwaran and A.K. Srivastava for the Appel lants.
1529 of 197 1.
numbericing an advertisement in a newspaper offering imported manual and electric typewriters, adding and calculating machines, the Customs authorities raided the premises of Messrs. Typewriters and Stationery Operation Private Limited, Calcutta, on the same day and recovered fifteen typewriters, adding and calculating machines.
The machines had been sold to the companypany by R.N. Bagh, who in turn disclosed that he had purchased them from the crew members of some vessels.
On 5 May, 1966.
N. Mukharjee and P.K. Ghosh for the respondents.
This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta is directed against the judgment dated 31 July, 1970 of that High Court partly allowing a writ petition arising out of proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, CJ.
