Judgment

SIKRI, C.J.I.: - This is an appeal by certificate granted to the appellant by the Calcutta High Court against its judgement, in appeal, reversing the decision of the Single Judge who had quashed the order dated June 15, 1963, passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta, confiscating 280 watches of the appellant under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, read with S. 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

2. The relevant facts for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows: The appellant is a firm carrying on business as dealer, importer and repairer of watches. The appellant s premises at 129, Radha Bazar Street, Calcutta, were searched on October 17, 1959, under a search warrant issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. In the course of the search, the Customs authorities seized 390 pieces of watches and took them away. By an order dated January 27, 1960, the Assistant Collector of Customs released 43 watches out of the 390 watches which had been seized On September 5, 1960, he released 64 more watches, and on January 11, 1961, he released another three watches and confiscated the remaining 280 pieces of wrist watches.

3. The appellant filed an appeal before the Additional Collector of Customs who quashed the confiscation, without going into the merits of other grounds, as according to him principles of natural justice had not been complied with in the case.

4. A fresh notice was thereafter served on the appellant to show cause why the watches seized should not be confiscated. The appellant thereupon filed a petition in the High Court challenging the initiation of fresh proceedings in respect of the 280 watches. A consent order was made by the High Court, and in pursuance of that order the Deputy Collector of Customs decided certain preliminary issueds against the appellant, on April 19, 1962. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed another petition in the High Court. Before the High Court Mr. Kar, counsel for the Customs, agreed to certain clarifications, namely, (1) that if the petitioner (appellant) is found guilty of having violated the order under S. 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) order made in 1955, and (2) if it be found to have imported watches across the customs frontiers as notified under S. 3 A of the Sea Customs Act, then only the charge will be taken as established. On these clarifications the High Court held that the charge levied against the appellant did not suffer from vagueness, as complained by the appellant. The High Court concluded:

"With the two clarifications made in the charge the adjudication against the petitioner should now proceed. Subject to the clarifications as herein-before made, I discharge the Rule. Let the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner now proceed on the charges as hereby clarified. There will be no order for costs.

The adjudication proceedings have been held up for long years and I direct the respondents customs authorities to finish the adjudication proceedings as early as possible."

This order was passed on March 7, 1963.

5. It appears that the Customs Authorities sent a memo, dated May 17, 1963, directing the appellant to show cause against the seizure of 280 pieces of wrist watches by the Customs Department. On May 25, 1963, the appellant sent its reply to the memo. The appellant first contested the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, and after raising some legal objections, stated in para 6 as follows:

"We have sufficiently explained our lawful acquisition and our legal possession of the said wrist watches in our various explanations submitted to you from time to time and we refer you to our explanation dated 22-8-1960, 2-2-1960, 27-4-1962, 20-3-1962, 6-2-1962 to you and also to our explanation contained in our petition filed before you." In para 8 of its reply, the appellant asserted that principles of natural justice had been violated. In para 10 it was alleged that "the Customs Department