but he did number personally appear.
in this letter it was stated that he had purchased these goods on june 3 1962 in the local market at madras through brokers that he was packing the same till late in the evening and since he was forced to leave for bangalore on the call of a friend immediately he instructed one of the staff of sha rupaji rikhabdas to keep the goods in their shop until his return.
7 oclock razor sets made in england12 doz.rs.
on a search of the firms premises on october 17 1959 the customs authorities seized 390 watches out of which 250 were company fiscated on the ground that they had been illicitly imported into india.
it was dismissed by the secretary to the government by an order dated september 7 1965.
of an anumberymous fictitous ?
on receipt of this letter the companylector made an attempt to contact bhoormull for further investigation.
this was followed by anumberher letter dated september 14 1962 from m s. gagrat company addressed to the assistant companylector of customs wherein the request for supply of the necessary information was reiterated.
against the order of the learned single judge bhoormull filed an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent to the division bench of the high companyrt which held that the onus on the department to prove that the goods had been smuggled companyld number in this case did number shift to bhoormull and that the laters failure to appear personally or prove before the companylector how he had companye by those goods did number justify an inference of their illicit importation because a mere suspicion cannumber be a substitute for proof.
at first even the names of the seller were number disclosed.
on march 27 1963 a revised show cause numberice was sent under registered companyer by the companylector of customs to bhoormull through his solicitors requiring him to produce within a week the purchase receipts bills vouchers customs auction receipts central excise auction receipts licences or any other documents in his possession and to furnish the names of the brokers in the markettheir addresses etc.
it was added that in case numberreply was received within the specified period the case would be decided ex parte on the basis of the facts already on record without further reference to him.
10675/ and those shown as items i and 3 from broker shanthi lal for a sum of rs.
this bhoormullthe alleged owner of the goods has never been seen even at the personal hearing a representative from him came all the companyrespondence was exchanged with the firm of solicitors namely m s. gagrat company of bombay.
in reply a letter dated december 13 1962 was written by the solicitors in which it was inter alia stated that on june 4 1962 at madras the goods being items 2 and 4 to 8 were purchased by their client from broker ram lal for a total price of rs.
at the time of seizure on june 4 1962 he disclaimed all knumberledge about the ownership and companytents of those packages and said they were left outside the shop by a broker whom he companyld number identify.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th march 1973 of the madras high companyrt at madras in writ appeal number 357 of 1969.
must have beenimported across the.
however on his behalf the solicitors wrote to the collector a letter dated april 30 1963 companytending that the burden of proving that the seized goods had been illegally imported into india lay on the customs department and the number production of the documents or number furnishing of the information asked for by the companylector companyld number justify an inference of illicit importation of the goods.
a date was fixed by the companylector for personal hearing of bhoormull.
the information called for was number supplied number did bhoormull appear personally before the companylector at any stage.
customs frontier.
12255/ be number companyfiscated under s. 167 8 of the sea customs act read with s. 3 2 imports and exports companytrol act 1947.
upon enquiries by the customs authorities to be false the result of these enquiries were communicated to the respondent number 1 who was thereafter heard by the adjudicating officer.
on july 3 1962 a letter was received by the companylector from m s. gagrat company solicitors bombay on behalf of bhoormull requesting for disclosure of the grounds for the seizure of the goods and for supply of the companyies of the mahazarnama and other relevant documents relating to the seizure.
eight days after the seizure a letter dated june 12 1962 was received by the companylector of customs from one d. bhoormull poonawala temporarily at 98 narayana mudali lane madras 1 claiming ownership of the goods.
705.00 gillette razor blades made in england 1000 pcs.rs.120.00 8.
some days later he appeared in the arena garb ?
730.00 rs.
the importation of goods shown as items 1 4 and 7 had been prohibited since december 1957 and of those at items 2 3 5 6 and 8 since march 1960 save under a licence issued by the import trade companytrol authorities under s. 1 9 of the sea customs act read with s. 3 1 of the imports and exports control act 1947.
the custom officers attempted to find out and companytact this indermul but without success.
in view of the above circumstances the companylector held that there was numberroom for doubt that the goods were acquired from illegally imported stocks he therefore ordered their confiscation under s. 167 8 of the sea customs act.
later on m s. gagrat company cited two brokers whose addresses were number furnished.
anumberher letter dated june 25 1962 was received by the collector from bhoormull urging for release of his goods at an early date.
it was added that such goods had been imported as late as 1959/1960 as personal baggages and had in fact been sold by the customs department at madras and elsewhere and as such were being freely bought and sold in the market.
from whom the goods were purchased by him failing which to show cause against companyfiscation of the goods.
subsequently the name of this partner was given as indermul.
the firms petition under article 226 of the constitution was.
hence this appeal with special leave by the department.
on june 9 1962 a letter was addressed by the said baboothmull to the companylector customs informing that on that date the owner of the packages one mr.
on the above reasoning the bench allowed the appeal and quashed the companylectors order for companyfiscation of the goods.
c it was eight days after the seizure that one bhoormull by a letter claimed ownership of the goods and baboothmull also confirmed this.
bhoormull however companyld number be companytacted as he had gone away to poona which was said to be his numbermal place of activity.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1142 of 1973.
the main circumstances taken into account by the companylector in raising such an inference may be arranged as under the import of such goods has been totally prohibited since 1957 except in the case of hair clippers and venus pencils which were allowed on a highly restricted quotabasis till october 1959/march 1966 policy period when their import too was banned the highly suspicious circumstances of the seizure and the dubious companyduct of the parties in relation thereto a th is large number of goods all of foreign origin worth over rs .12000/ were found fully packed and ready for despatch.
d despite repeated requisitions made and two showcause numberices given by the companylector numberbill voucher or other documentary evidence whatever regarding purchase of the goods in the recognised markets of the companyntry was produced.
the officers questioned baboothmull about those packages.
bhoormull then moved the high companyrt at madras by a writ petition under art.
4872/ and that these brokers had number issued any bills or receipts regarding those goods.
any further particulars or addresses of the brokers were number disclosed.
d. bhoormull turned up to claim the goods that his other partner was absent at the time of the seizure of the goods who knew about this affair and that he had subsequently learnt from this partner that those goods belonged to d. bhoormull who left instructions for their storage in the shop.
the assistant companylector of customs on october 26 1962 issued a numberice to bhoormull through his solicitors m s. gagrat company bombay requiring him to produce evidence of bona fide acquisition of the goods in question failing which to show cause within a week as to why those goods valued at rs.
after getting a companysent letter from baboothmull the officers opened the packages which companytained these articles of the total value of rs.
they were of foreign make and.
226 of the companystitution impugning the aforesaid orders of the companylector the board and the central government companytending that the companyfiscation was illegal because the customs department on which the onus of proving the unlawful importation of the goods lay had failed to adduce any evidence whatever to discharge that onus.
the propriety and legality of the companylectors impugned order had to be judged in the light of the above principles.
the explanations offered by the responden t number 1 regarding its companying into possession of the same between 1956 and 1957 were found.
baboothmull was unable to throw any light with regard to the owner or the contents of the packages.
allowed by a learned single judge of the high companyrt and the order of companyfiscation was quashed on the ground that the customs authorities had failed to prove illicit importation of the watches.
12255.00 the officers seized these goods under a mahazarnama.
on appeal by the department the division bench of the.high companyrt reversed the decision of the single judge with these observations the watches were seized from the possession of the respondent number 1 appellant who had number obtained a licence or a customs clearance permit for importation of the same.
they found ten packages in that shop.
against this order dated october 24 1963 bhoormull carried an appeal under s. 131 of the customs act 1962 to the central board of revenue which dismissed the same on september 7 1964 aggrieved bhoormull preferred a revision petition to the central government.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkaria j. this appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts on receiving information that some packages companytaining smuggled goods had been left by a person in the premises of m s. sha rupaji rikhabdas at 98 narayana mudali lane madras 1 and that these packages were about to be despatched to bangalore for disposal a posse of preventive officers of the customs house went to the said shop on june 4 1962.
s. ramamurthy and b. r. agarwala for the respondent.
person one bhoormull.
l. sanghi and s. p. nayar for the appellants.
baboothmull replied that he was number the owner of those packages and that somebody next to his shop had left them outside the premises and since that person had number returned for a companysiderable time he got them removed into the shop.
it was reiterated that the goods had been bona fide purchased by bhoormull in the companyrse of business and as such were number liable to seizure or companyfiscation.
baboothmull of m s. sha rupaji rikhabdas was present there.
