1969 Supreme(Cal) 193

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. C. Mitra
SHEW BHAGWAN GOANKA - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Respondent
Matter 438  Of  1967
Decided On : AUGUST 5, 1969

The Customs authorities have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the unauthorized importation of goods under Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal and revision under the Act does not bar a petitioner's right to relief in a writ petition if a question of jurisdiction is raised.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SECTIONS 111(D), 112, 122, 124, 128, 129(1), 131(1) - IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (CONTROL) ACT, 1947 - SECTIONS 3(1), 3(2) - IMPORTS (CONTROL) ORDER, 1955 - CLAUSE 3 - JURISDICTION - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - ADJUDICATION - EVIDENCE - NATURAL JUSTICE - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - MISCONSTRUCTION OF LICENCE - IMPORT OF BALL-BEARINGS WITHOUT LICENCE - CONFISCATION OF GOODS - IMPOSITION OF PENALTY - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - SCOPE AND EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Hindu undivided family carrying on business under the name and style of East Jamuria Coal Company, obtained an actual user's Import Trade Control Licence for the import of plant, machinery and equipment of a total C. I. F. value of Rs. 66,000/-. The petitioner imported 28 cases of Ball-bearings under the said licence. The Customs authorities issued show cause notices to the petitioner alleging that the importation of the said goods was unauthorized and liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and that a personal penalty should be imposed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to make the impugned order, contending that the show cause notices did not disclose any offence, that there was no evidence to support the impugned order, that the burden of proving that the ball-bearings were suitable for use in the plant and machinery of the petitioner was wrongly placed on the petitioner, that rules of natural justice were violated as the catalogue for automotive bearings published by S. K. F. Ball-Bearing Company was not shown to the petitioner, and that the respondent misconstrued the licence issued to the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Customs authorities had jurisdiction to make the impugned order as the petitioner attempted to import ball-bearings, which can be imported only on the basis of a licence, in violation of the terms of a licence obtained by it. The Court further held that there was evidence to support the impugned order as the show cause notices and the impugned order relied on various correspondence between the parties, the Coal Controller and Messrs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., which were materials on record on which the respondent relied and of which the petitioner was fully aware. The Court also held that the petitioner was not denied natural justice as the catalogue published by the S. K. F. Ball-Bearing Company was not a private communication or a confidential report, but a printed catalogue commonly used in the trade, and the petitioner did not ask for its production and inspection at the hearing. The Court further held that the existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal and revision under the Customs Act was not a bar to the petitioner's right to relief in a writ petition, as a question of jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to make the impugned order had been raised by the petitioner. The Court also held that the licence was not misconstrued by the Customs authorities as the ball-bearings sought to be imported were not meant for, and not suitable for, use in the plant and machinery of the petitioner's colliery, and that these were meant for use in motor vehicles and machinery generally.

Issues: 1. Whether the Customs authorities had jurisdiction to make the impugned order? 2. Whether there was evidence to support the impugned order? 3. Whether the petitioner was denied natural justice? 4. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy barred the petitioner's right to relief in a writ petition? 5. Whether the licence was misconstrued by the Customs authorities?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Customs authorities had jurisdiction to make the impugned order as the petitioner attempted to import ball-bearings, which can be imported only on the basis of a licence, in violation of the terms of a licence obtained by it. 2. There was evidence to support the impugned order as the show cause notices and the impugned order relied on various correspondence between the parties, the Coal Controller and Messrs. Larsen and Toubro Ltd., which were materials on record on which the respondent relied and of which the petitioner was fully aware. 3. The petitioner was not denied natural justice as the catalogue published by the S. K. F. Ball-Bearing Company was not a private communication or a confidential report, but a printed catalogue commonly used in the trade, and the petitioner did not ask for its production and inspection at the hearing. 4. The existence of an alternative remedy by way of appeal and revision under the Customs Act was not a bar to the petitioner's right to relief in a writ petition, as a question of jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to make the impugned order had been raised by the petitioner. 5. The licence was not misconstrued by the Customs authorities as the ball-bearings sought to be imported were not meant for, and not suitable for, use in the plant and machinery of the petitioner's colliery, and that these were meant for use in motor vehicles and machinery generally.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.