Judgement

SIKRI, J.: These five appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court accepted the Writ Appeals against the judgment of Kailasam, J, in Writ Petitions Nos. 1592, 1593, 1594 and 1601 of 1966 and 3948 of 1965, and directed the issue of writs of prohibition to the Union of India, the Collector of Customs, Madras, and the Deputy Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam, appellants before us, prohibiting them from taking any action in pursuance of certain show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Collector Customs, Visakhapatnam. Common questions of law are involved in these appeals and it would suffice if I give facts in Writ Petition No. 1592 of 1966 out of which Civil Appeal No. 45 of 1968 arises.

2. The relevant facts in that writ petition for appreciating the points raised before us, are as follows: On February 17, 1965, the Deputy Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam, issued memorandum No. S/21/14/65 to M/s. Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad (Private) Ltd., Tumsar, and five others, hereinafter referred to as the Shippers. In this memorandum, in brief, it was stated that the Shippers had entered into a formal contract on October 13, 1965, with M/s. Inter Continental Ores Supply Corporation, New York, for the shipment of 20,000 tons of Indian Manganese Ore of the grade of 43 p.c. Mn., from the port of Visakhapatnam at a price of $ 0.67 per unit of Manganese per dry long ton, f.o.b. Visakhapatnam/Bombay. The Shippers exported from the port of Visakhapatnam 3,300 tons of Indian Manganese per ss. ALPHEM under the cover of Shipping Bill No. 187 dated March 20, 1957, declaring therein that the export was being made in pursuance of the aforesaid contract. A. G. R. I. form was attached. It was stated that a certain note-book which had been seized earlier in August 1963 disclosed that a sum of $ 25298.24 was received on April 21, 1957, from INOSCO, i.e. Intercontinental Ores Supply Corporation, New York, the consignee of the subject goods, the amount having been credited to an account in the name of Gangadhar Narsinghdas Agrawal with the Trust Co. of North America, 115, Broadway, New York. It was further alleged in the memorandum that the Shippers had derived financial benefits in respect of the subject export over and above those revealed to the Customs Authorities and/or other concerned authorities and the information about them was deliberately suppressed. It was further alleged that this constituted a contravention of S. 12 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, read with Notification No. 12 (17)-F. 1/47 dated August 4, 1947, as amended, issued thereunder and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1952.

3. I may mention that by this notification the Central Government had prohibited "the export otherwise than by post of any goods either directly or indirectly to any place outside India other than any of the countries or territories in the Schedule annexed to this order unless a declaration supported by such evidence as may be prescribed is furnished by the exporter to the prescribed authority that the amount representing the full export value of the goods has been or will within the prescribed period be paid in the prescribed manner."

4. According to the Deputy Collector of Customs, the goods have been thus exported in contravention of the restrictions and prohibitions imposed under S. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with S. 12 (1) and the Notification No. 12 (17)-F. 1/47 dated August 4, 1947, issued thereunder, and S. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, which exportation constituted an offence liable to be punished under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Accordingly, the parties concerned were called upon to explain the matter and show cause in writing to the Collector of Customs, Madras, why a penalty should not be imposed on them/him under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

5. It appears that a number of such memoranda were