JUDGMENT - (1) This is a suit filed for challenging the validity of certain orders passed under the provisions of the foreign exchange Regulation Act and the Sea Customs act and for recovering baci 310 tolas of gold confiscated in accordance with these orders. The plaintiff also seeks to recover in the alternative the value of gold viz., Rs. 30,790/- and interest at the rate of 6 per cent p.a. The plaintiffs case is as follws:

(2) The plaintiff was proceeding from Aden to Colombo and S. S. City of Durham by which the plaintiff was travelling arrived at Bombay on 30-11-1950 On that date the plaintiff for the purpose of visiting the city of Bombay was passing through the Blue Gate of the Alexandra Docks and was questioned by officer of customs. The plaintiff informed the officer that he was carrying gold which was in his cabin. The plaintiff produced gold wighing 310 tolas in his cabin and the same was seized. Ultimate by the impugned order dated 29-12-1950 one M.E. Rahaman the then collector of customs found that the condition of the reserve Bank of India notification No. 62/48-R. B. of 25-8-1948 had not been fulfilled in the case of the plaintiff and that the fold must be held to have been brought into India contravention of the provisions of the aforesaid Notification. He also found that the gold was not shown in the ships manifest as for through transist nor was it kept with the purser or captain of the ship. The collector of customs ordered confiscation of the gold under S. 167(8) of the sea customs act and further ordered that the gold should be allowed to be redeemed on payment of Rs. 30,790/- subject to production or permit from the Reserve Bank of India.

(3) the aforesaid order dated 29-12-1950 was duly served on the plaintiff. A copy of that order is annexed as Ex. E to the plaint. The plaintiff was informed that an appeal against the order lay to the Central Board of Revenue. New Delhi the plaintiff went in appeal against the order dated 29-12-1950 to the central Board of Revenue. That appeal was customs Appeal No. 976 of 1951. By its order dated 22-10-1951 the central Board of Revenue held that it saw no reason to interfere with the order passed by the collector of customs Bombay. In the result in my view the order of confiscation with the right of redemption as made by the collector of customs stood confirmed and became the order of the Central Board of Revenue.

(4) As against those orders the plaintiff filed a Revision Application under the sea customs Act before the Government of India and by an order in Revision made on 24-6-1953 it was held that The government of India sees no reason to interefere with the order in appeal passed by the Central Board of Revenue.

(5) the plaintiff (declared on 4-12-1953 and) filed on 18-12-1953 in this court Mis. Petition No. 342 of 1953 under Art. 226 of the consititution challenging all the aforesaid three order as being invalid on the ground that the plaintiff had not imported and was not importing these 310 tolas of gold into India and that the finding against the plaintiff by the customs collector and the central Board of Revenue and the government of India that he had contravened the notification Reserve Bank of India as already mentioned in the order of the customs collector was contrary to law and untenable. The plaintiff also contended that show cause notice was not served on him and he had not been given a proper hearing and the orders were vitiated by violation of rules of natural justice. On December 10th, 1953, Tendolkar. J. Dismissed the petition after considering all the contentions raised by the plaintiff in that petition.

(6) By his advocates letter dated December 14th, 1953 the plaintiff served anotice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in connection with this suit on the Union of India and the collector of customs and ultimately on February 24th, 1954 the plaintiff filed this suit once again to challenge the aforesaid orders.

(7) By their written st

Click Here to Read the rest of this document