JUDGMENT - (1) This is a petition undr Act 226 of the Constitution challenging the act of the 2nd Respondent, being Rummaging Inspector of Customs, of seizure of a Buick motor car of the ownership of the petitioner. Incidentally, certinas ordrs passed by the Additional Collector of Custom and Assistant Collector of Customs have been argued to be invalid on behlaf of the petitioner as also the respondents.

(2) The relevant facts are as follows:

A Buick (Sedan) 1959 Model two-door convertible car landed at the Port of Bombay on 22nd September 1959 by S.S. "Exchequer". It was sought to be cleard without payment of duty and without an I.T.C. licenceunder cover of Carnet De passages En Dluance No. 593820 by one V.V. Purie and one Mauji as agents of one Mons, Andra bensimon. The clearance was not allowed to be permitted. Bensimon arrived in India on October 8, 1959. Purie, Mauji and Bensimon wee called upon to show cause why the Buick car should not be confiscated under S 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. All the above parties appear to have had a hearing and showed cause.

(3) Before the matter of the above investigation and inquiry was completed, by his order dated November 9, 1960, S, Sarkar, being the Assistant Collector of Customs, in respect of the above Buick car as also diverse other goods, made a finding that evidence had not been produced to the Customs House to show that the goods had been imported In accordance with the Import Control Regulations. He accordingly held that he goods were liable to be confiscted and passded orders confiscatin all the goods, including he Buick car, under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (control) Act, 1947. He also imposed fines in respect of each item of the goods ordered to be confiscated. The fine that he imposed under S. 183 of the Sea Customs Act in respect of the Buick car was a sum of Rs. 8,000/- . A copy of the above order of th Assistant Collector of Customs is annexed as Ex. 1 to the affidavit in reply of A. Athaide, the 2nd Respondent, dated January 21, 1961. As appears from the last but one paragraph of his order, the Assistant Collector also stated that the Customs House had no objection under S. 89 of the Ses Customs Act to the Removal and clearance of ahe goods from the port and to an auction sale of each item of the goods mentioned in his order being held under S. 64-A of the Bombay Port Trust Act. The conditions that he attached to the sale were that the Port Trust authorities must guarantee payment of custom duty cvhargeable and the fine imposed by the orde iself. On November 10, 1960, the trusstees of the Post of Bombay under the provisions of S. 64 and S. 64-A of the Bombay Port Trust Act got sold by auction amongst other goods the above Buick car. An advertisement of the the auction sale had been published in the newspapers prior to the above auction. The petitioner purchased the Buick car at the price of Rs. 71,000/- and in accordance with the terms paid 33-1/3 per cent baing Rs. 24,000/- to the auctioneers on the dae of the sale. On November 16, 1960, the Petitioner having paid the balance of the price of Rs. 47,000/-, was given dlivery and possession and the Petitioner then garaged the Buick car with certain third parties being her agents.

(4) On November 26, 1960, the 2nd Respondent seized the goods. The Respondents case is that the goods were sezed under the powers available under S. 178 of the Sea Customs Act. The Respondents case is that in ignornace of the above order of the Assistant Collector dated November, 9, 1960, by his order dated November 15, 1960, the Additional Collector of Customs made his findings and orders in the matter of adjudication and inquiry that was proceeding against Purie, Mauji and Bensimon. He accordingly made another order of confiscation of the Buick car under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3(3) of the Imports and E

Click Here to Read the rest of this document