No inference has been drawn against the appellant from their inability to produce any bags marked H.N. after July 17, 1957.
Nor were the goods liable to companyfiscation under s. 7 1 of the Land Customs Act.
There was numberdistinguishing mark on any dollar.
The Collector held that i the goods were liable to companyfiscation under s. 5 3 of the Land Customs Act as they were number companyered by the accompanying import application number 32 ii the appellant failed to prove that the first companysignment of 66 bags bore the mark H.N. or that by inadvertence of the carriers, application number 34 had been sent with it and iii had the first companysignment of 66 bags borne the mark H.N. the Range Officer.
No inference of smuggling companyld be drawn from the fact that H.D. bags were found with application number 32.
32 and 34 to the officer in charge, Land Customs Station, Kalimpong, for the grant of permits for passing the goods across the frontier.
It held that 1 s. 5 3 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 applied to the case 2 the fact that the 66 bags bore the mark H.D. and the accompanying application number 32 related to H.N. bags.
5 3 and 7 1 of the Land Customs Act and S. 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 had been companymitted and directing companyfiscation of the goods under those sections read with s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
Mr. B. Sen for the appellant companytended that the seizure and companyfiscation of the goods was number authorized by s. 5 3 of the Land Customs Act, 1924, 2 the finding that the appellant had companymitted offences under that section and other provisions of law was perverse and liable to be quashed and 3 the impugned orders were passed in companytravention of the principles of natural justice.
The onus was on the respondents to prove that the first companysignment of 66 bags bore the mark H.D. Application number 34 accompanied the first companysignment.
5 3 and 7 1 of the Land Customs Act, 1924, and section 167 8 read with s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 as made applicable by s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 as there was reason to believe that the goods had been imported by the appellant by land from Tibet into India on May 16, 1957 through Indo Tibet border, i without a valid permit under s. 5 of the Land Customs Act, and ii without valid permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India under numberification No.
On November 16, 1962, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the aforesaid decisions and for setting aside the order of companyfiscation of the silver dollars.
On May 18, 1957, the Range Officer, Matidhar seized the second companysignment of 82,500 dollars packed in 66 bags bearing the mark H.D. together with the application No.
If he present appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining a certificate from the High Court.
There was numbernoting on application number 34 by the customs officer at Sonapur or at Dum Dum indicating that they had examined the bags or that the bags were found to bear the mark H.D. The summary of the diary of the Range Officer Matidhar set out in the order of companyfiscation does number show that the officer examined the bags.
The Central Board of Revenue established Kalimpong as the land customs station and prescribed the following routes by which alone dutiable goods companyld pass out of Tibet into India a road leading from Yatung in Tibet to Kalimpong via Jelapala pass and pedong through Sikkim State, b road leading from Yatung in Tibet to Kalimpong via Nathula pass and Rangpo through the Sikkim State.
The Range Officer, Matidhar, was a land customs officer working under the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, having jurisdiction over Sonapur where the dollars were seized.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No.
1957 and the goods companyld number be companyfiscated under s. 5 3 .
On August 25, 1964 the Divisional Bench dismissed the appeal.
showed companyclusively that the dollars companytained in those bags were imported without proper licence and import permit and without payment of duty and 3 the finding of fact that there was numbermistake on the part of the carriers with regard to the despatch of the companysignments and accompanying documents companyld number be set aside in a writ application.
On the morning of May 17, one companysignment of 82,500 dollars packed in 66 bags together with the import application number 34 was sent by plane from the Sonapur airstrip to Dum Dum airport and on the same date the companysignment reached Dum Dum and was delivered to the appellant at Calcutta.
show that the seized dollars were number companyered by the permits and licences held by the appellant.
The seizure was made under s. 5 3 of the Land Customs Act on the Found that the mark on the bags was H.D. whereas the accompanying import application No.
The Land Customs Act, 1924 provided for the levy of duties of customs on articles imported or exported by land from or to territory outside India.
8 1 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
32 related to the bags marked H.N. Application No.
F. 3 84 E.F. VII/56 dated May 4, 1956 issued under sec.
Having regard to the facts on the record numbertribunal companyld reasonably companye to the companyclusion that the dollars were liable to companyfiscation if they properly understood the relevant enactments.
34 related to the bags marked H.D. On May 16, the two companysignments arrived at the land customs station, Kalimpong and were examined and appraised by the land customs officer in charge of the station.
On the materials on.
In the circumstances the order of the Collector companyfiscating the goods is liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari, see Halsburys Laws of England, 3rd ed.
1957 the appellant had numberoccasion to produce before the companystoms authorities any of the 66 bags marked H.N. which had reached Calcutta.
1 to 66.
The appellant was heard by the Collector an August 26, and December 11, 1957.
He held that there was numbererror of law apparent on the face of the record.
No attempt was made to prove that the appellant was in possession of another companysignment of 82,500 dollars.
On January 10, 1958, the Collector passed an order adjudging that offences under ss.
Sen, D.K. Kapur, B.P. Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
On July 7, 1957, the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, issued a numberice to the appellant to show cause why the dollars seized on May 18, 1957 should number be companyfiscated and why a penalty should number be imposed upon the appellant under ss.
Application No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the night of May 16, they reached Siliguri and were delivered to M s. Amalgamated Transport Co., for carriage by air to Dum Dum.
A revision petition against the last order was dismissed by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue on January 16, 1961.
37 D of 1964.
On the duty being paid, the officer endorsed the two applications, certifying that the duty was paid and permitting the import of the goods.
At the time of import the dollars were packed in 66 bags marked H.N. and 66 bags marked H.D. The Range Officer seized 82.500 dollars packed in 66 bags marked D. There is numberevidence to.
An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Member, Central Board of Revenue, on May 17, 1958.
As there were two Reserve Bank licences, the dollars were divided into two lots at Yatung.
One lot of bags bore the mark H.D. and serial numbers 1 to 66, and the other lot bore the mark H.N. and srl.
32, when they were about to be despatched by air from the sonapur airstrip.
M. Mehta and S.P. Nayar, for the respondents.
That numberification prohibited the import into India of silver companyns current in the Tibet region of China without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. The appellant, M s. Hind Trading Company, imported 1,65,000 pieces of Chinese Silver Dollars from Yatung in Tibet to Kalmnpong, via Nathula pass and Rangpo through Sikkim State under two Reserve Bank import licences dated April 22, 1957.
number.
Each lot companysisted of 66 bags companytaining 82,500 dollars.
8.45 p.m. on May 16.
1332 of 1966.
On July 30, 1957 the appellant showed cause against the proposed action by a letter stating that the first companysignment of 82,500 dollars was packed in bags marked H.N. that by inadvertence the carriers M s. Amalgamated Transport Co., had sent import application number 34 with the first companysignment and had kept application number 32 with the bags marked H.D., that the two companysignments were companyered by valid Reserve Bank licences and import passes, that the seizure of the dollars kept in H.D. bags under s. 5 3 of the Land Customs Act was number justified and that there was numberground for companyfiscating the goods or imposing any penalty.
The numbere in the diary that the mark checked was H.D. companyld have been made on the basis of the mark H.D. shown in the accompanying application number Before the issue of the show cause numberice on July 17.
The appellant filed a Letters Patent appeal against the order.
On May 14, 1964, Shamsher Bahadur, J. dismissed the petition.
32 related to H.N. bags.
The companysignments loaded in trucks then passed out of the customs house and on the way to Siliguri were checked at the Teesta Bazar check post at.
These companytentions were disputed by Mr. R.M. Mehta.
On May 15, 1957 the appellant made two applications bearing Nos.
It follows that the dollars were number liable to companyfiscation under any provision of law.
There was numbernoting by the customs officers at Sonapur and Dum Dum on application number If the appellant desired to send smuggled H.D. bags from Sonapur to Dum Dum, they companyld easily obtain application number 34 from Calcutta and send it with the companysignment seized at Sonapur.
The appellant imported 1,65,000 dollars from Tibet under two Reserve Bank licences and two import permits.
Matidhar and the officers at Dum Dum would have detected and rioted this fact and the appellant companyld have produced before the customs officials at Calcutta bags with the mark H.N. immediately after May 18, 1957.
The appellant was found in possession of 1,65,000 dollars only.
