The customs authorities have jurisdiction to impose a personal penalty under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act after the goods have left the customs barrier, and the issuance of a show-cause notice by the customs authorities does not constitute an initial lack of jurisdiction, warranting intervention by the writ court.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner is a firm of established importers of Iron and Steel materials. On or about 31st December, 1957 the petitioner got a license from the Government of India being License No, STC/bk/tds/98 for the importation at the Port of Calcutta and Bombay of 9299. 379 tons of Mild Steel plates, from the areas mentioned therein, of the value c. i. f. of Rs. 94,69,500/ -. It has been pointed out in the license itself, the original of which has been produced in court, that it was issued subject to the policy outlined in the Import Trade Control Book, published by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, and that the limiting factor in the license was the weight and c. i. f. value. It has also been stated therein that the importers, who mention incorrect prices in the application for a custom permit will be penalised. On or about 15th January, 1958 the petitioner imported through Messrs. 'gosho Co. Ltd. , of Tokyo, Japan, ex. s. s. "eastern Maid", 76 pieces of M. S. plates to BSS-15, size 1-1/8" x 4' x 8', weighing 49. 817 long tons, into the Port of Calcutta. On arrival of the said vessel at the Port of Calcutta on or about the 2nd week of February, 1958, the petitioner on 13th February, 1958 submitted a Bill of Entry for home consumption, relating to the said consignment. In the Bill of Entry so submitted, the value of the goods was declared as 1762-15-6 c. i. f. The petitioner further obtained a custom clearance permit in respect thereof, being No. SIC/cp/tds/1201/124, wherein, the value was shown as Rs. 23,586/- c. i. f. This Bill of Entry together with the clearance permit was accepted by the Customs authorities and registered as I. F. R. No. 423 of 14-2-1958. Thereafter, the goods were assessed and it is admitted that under item 63 (19) of the Tariff Schedule, the goods were found to be duty free. They were cleared from the custom barrier, between 18th and 22nd February, 1958. Thereafter, the custom authorities received certain informations and seized a number of documents and files from the office of the petitioner firm. It appears from the documents so seized, that the petitioner had imported these 76 pieces of M. S. Plates ex. ss. "eastern Maid" of the value of 2504-13-4, but had declared the same to be of the value of 1762-15-0. The customs clearance permit that was obtained, was of the value of Rs. 23,586/- whereas the goods cleared were in excess of that amount by Rs. 10,286. 56 np. It appeared from a photostatic copy of the relative invoice, which was among the seized documents, that the invoice price was 2224-3-1, f. o. b. and the freight was 312-12-0. The customs authorities asked for particulars from the petitioner's clearing agents, the Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. From their reply and the other documents seized, it appears that the original Bill of Entry as made out by the clearing agents correctly showed the value as 2540-13-0. It was subsequently scored out and the figure of 1762-15-6 was substituted therefor. According to the clearing agents, what happened was that on 5th February, 1958 the petitioner requested them to give inspection of the documents which they had received from the Punjab National Bank Ltd. and the documents were handed over to the petitioner's representatives. Later, the custom agents received a request from the petitioner for a set of blank Bill of Entry forms, which were supplied. The relevant documents taken for inspection were returned on the 12th February, 1958 and, according to the clearing agents, the substitution was made without their knowledge, and they apologised to the customs authorities for not having checked the documents more closely before submitting the same. On the 9th January, 1959 the Assistant Collector of Customs for appraisement issued a notice upon the petitioner, referring to the above facts, and asking them to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner, b