The Collector passed his order oil May 14, 1952, and a companyy was forwarded to respondent 5.
On June 19, 1952, the appellant Company filed a second writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta in which it asked that a a writ of certiorari do issue against respondents I to 3 calling upon them to produce the record of the proceeding resulting in the impugned order of May 14,1952, and for quashing the same b a writ of mandamus do issue requiring respondents 1 to 3 to forbear from giving effect to the orders of seizure, detention and companyfiscation of the appellants gold and further requiring the said respondents to return the gold to the appellant and e a writ of prohibition do issue restraining the said respondents from taking any further steps in pursuance of the order of companyfiscation etc.
A companyy of the numbere submitted by the latter together with companyies of the assay reports therein referred to are enclosed herewith.
This latter officer heard the parties afresh and companycluded the hearing on February 8, 1952.
10,00,000 Rupees ten lakhs only in addition to the proper customs duty and other charge leviable thereon within four months from the date of the despatch of this order.
256 of 1954.
The parties were then heard by the then Collector of Customs, Sri Raja Ram Rao but before the hearing companyld companyclude, Sri Raja Ram.
On receipt of your explanation, the Collector has directed me to further inform you that in this case a date and time will be fixed for hearing at which you will be required to produce all oral evidence in support of your explanation and also to make your submissions.
along with your explanation.
You are also requested to send companyies of all documentary evidence including all books of account, vouchers etc.,
The appellant is Shewpujanrai lndrasanrai Ltd., a private limited companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and carrying on business at 69, Manohar Das Street, Calcutta.
Secondly, he held that the companyditions which the Collector of Customs had imposed in the impugned order for release of the companyfiscated gold were number warranted by the statute, and as the impugned order was one companyposite order, different parts whereof companyld number be severed one from the other, the entire order must be held to have been made without jurisdiction.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 3, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
Broadly speaking, the two main grounds on which he held the impugned order to be bad ,ere these.
7 of 1953, arising out of the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1952, of the said High Court in Matter No.
84 of 1952.
K. Daphtary Solicitor General of India, H. J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for respondents Nos.
The release of the gold will be further subject to the production of a permit from Reserve Bank of India within the aforesaid period.
C. Chatterjee, S. K. Kapur and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
Rao was transferred.
With the companysent of the appellant Company, the two Banks respondents 4 and 5, sent the gold to the Calcutta Min for the purpose of assaying.
He said If the petitioners had number been implicated in the charge it might have been open to the Customs authorities to proceed under section 182 if steps were intended to be taken only against the offending goods but the numberice to show cause makes it clear that that is number the case.
In the result, it accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of Bose J. The present appeal is from the aforesaid judgment and order of the Division Bench dated July 3, 1953.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. This appeal has companye to us on a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta that the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court.
His successor, Mr. J. W. Orr, heard the parties on some days but on October 11, 1951, Mr. Orr was succeeded by Sri A. N. Puri.
It is stated that between November 14,1950, and November 20, 1950, the appellant Company, ill the usual companyrse of its business, purchased about 9,478 tolas of gold, and in respect of the said purchases, borrowed money from respondents 4 and 5.
May 9.
On July 3, 1951, the appellant Company submitted its explanation in answer to the aforesaid numberice.
The respondent took numbersteps against the order, but was companytent with its position as respondent to the application which the present appellant filed in the High Court.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The gold so purchased was deposited with the respondent banks as security for the loans taken, 7,044 tolas being deposited with respondent 4 and about 2,437 tolas with respondent 5.
The final order which he made was in these terms I accordingly order that the entire quantity of the gold seized on the 21st November, 1950, amounting to 9,478.19 tolas be companyfiscated under section 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act.
On May 14, 1952, Sri A. N. Puri passed the order impugned in this case, in which he came to the companyclusion that the gold in question 9,478.19 tolas was smuggled gold and that there was a companytravention of the provisions of s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with s. 8 of the Foreign Exchange Act.
The order of the Collector shows that all throughout the adjudication proceedings respondent 5 was represented by companynsel before the Collector.
Sen, S. N. Mukherjee, and B. N. Ghosh, for respondent No.
On June 20, 1951, the Customs authorities sent a numberice to the appellant Company which was in these terms Subject Seizure of 9,478 19 tolas of gold at the Government of India Mint, Strand Road, Calcutta.
Then there was an appeal which was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Das and Mookerjee JJ.
On December 19, 1950, the appellant Company made an application in the High Court of Calcutta under Art.
Oil November 22, 1950, the appellant Company received a letter signed by one Jasjit Singh of the Customs Department, requesting the presence of the appellant at the Customs House on November 27, 1950, for opening and checking the bags of bullion which had been seized from the Mint.
On the same day, certain books of account of the appellant companypany were.
This second writ application was dealt with and disposed of by Bose J. by his order dated August 5, 1952.
The material facts are these.
No order was made about the gold seized and detained.
On November 20, 1950, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, asked the Mint authorities number to part with the gold, and on November 21, 1950, the gold was seized at the instance of the Customs authorities, Calcutta, in pursuance of a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
Veda Vyasa and B. P. Maheshwari, for respondent No.
1 to 3.
also seized from its place of business at 69, Manohar Das Street.
The appellant Company carries on business as a bullion merchant and in that capacity used to buy gold and silver in the Calcutta and Bombay markets and sell the same either direct or through bankers at the aforesaid two places.
On these findings, the rule was made absolute, the impugned order was quashed and respondents I to 3 were directed to forbear from giving effect to the order.
This writ application was heard and disposed of by an order made by Bose J. of the Calcutta High Court on April 23, 1951, the result of which was that the rule was made absolute to this extent only that the seizure of the books of account was declared to be illegal and a direction was made that the books be returned forthwith to the appellant Company.
Respondents I and 3 are the Customs authorities companycerned respondent 2 is the Union of India, and respondents 4 and 5 are two banks, called respectively Nationale Handels Bank N. V., a foreign companypany carrying On business at 1, Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta, and Bharat Bank Ltd., a companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and having its registered office at 143, Cotton Street, Calcutta.
This numberice was issued on the strength of an information companytained in a numbere which the Superintendent, Preventive Service of the Customs authorities, submitted and which said that the gold in question had been smuggled into India in violation of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 hereinafter referred to as the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Foreign Exchange Act and that the gold had been sent to the Mint for processing that is, for melting and casting the same into bars, weighing and stamping the same with the Mint Marks, and also assaying small portions thereof.
226 of the Constitution in which it asked for the issue of appropriate writs or orders quashing the orders of seizure and detention of its gold and books of account, and for a further direction that the Customs authorities be prohibited from giving effect to the said orders of detention and seizure or from taking any steps in companynection with the gold or the books of account seized.
Apart altogether from the companysiderations which the learned Solicitor General has pressed as to which it is un necessary for us to express any final opinion , namely, 1 that a pledgee cannot have a right higher than that of the pleader, ii that the pledgor does number cease to be the owner by reason of the pledge, and iii that in an action in rem the order operators directly upon the status of the property and, as in this case, vests the property absolutely in Government, there are certain other circumstances which militate against the claim number put forward by respondent 5.
I have been directed by the Collector of Customs to inform you that the above case has been placed before him for adjudication by the Superintendent, Preventive Service.
