P. B. MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant is Kshetra Nath Basak. His complaint is against the order of the Collector of Land Customs dated 24-1-1957 by which the Land Customs Collector confiscated the gold bullion and silver obsolete coins under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 23a of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. These cold bullion and silver coins were seized on 2-8-1955 as being illegally and illicitly imported into India from Pakistan in contravention of Section 5 of the Land Customs Act, 1924 read with relevant Notifications mentioned in the Land Customs Collector's order issued under Section 8 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Land Customs Collector also held that an offence under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act bad been committed as bring applicable under Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

( 2 ) MR. Section Burman, learned Counsel for the applicant, challenged the order of confiscation on a number of grounds. His first ground is that the Land Customs Collector failed to notice and consider the most relevant document in his favour which, according to the applicant is the purchase or cash memo showing the purchase of some gold. His second objection is that the Land Customs Collector was wrong in applying the provisions of Section 178a of the Sea Customs Act and throwing the burden of proof upon the applicant. His third objection is that the Collector did not give him the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation as provided in Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act as applied to Land Customs. Finally, Mr. Burman argued that the necessary conditions proving contravention of Section 5 of the Land Customs Act have not been satisfied.

( 3 ) IT will be necessary in this case to have a bibliography of the sections of the relevant Statutes and the Notifications which have a bearing on the fate of this application. The reason why I say so is that the statutory mosaic in this case is so variegated and so difficult to find that it is best to have them in one place even in a judgment for the purpose of reference.

( 4 ) THE first Statute with which this application is concerned, is the. Land Customs Act, 1924. It is a Statute which in its preamble states its purpose "to consolidate, amend and extend the law relating to the levy of duties of customs and articles imported and expected by land from or to territory outside India. " Section 5 of the Land Customs Act is a material section for purposes of this application. In fact, the goods were seized in this case because they were supposed to have been illegally brought or imported to India from Pakistan in contravention of Section 5 of this Act. Section 5 of the Land Customs Act reads as follows:"5 (1) Every person desiring to pass any goods, whether dutiable goods or not, by land, out of or into any foreign territory shall apply in writing, in such form as the Chief Customs Authority may, by Notification in the Official Gazette prescribe, for a permit For the passage thereof, to the Land Customs Officer in charge of a Land Customs station established in a Land Customs area adjoining the foreign frontier across which the goods are to pass. (2) When the duty on such goods has been paid or the goods have been found by the Land Customs Officer to be free of duty, the Land Customs Officer shall grant a permit certifying that duty has been paid on such goods or that the goods are free of duty, as the case may be. (3) Any Land Customs Officer, duly empowered by the Chief Customs Authority in this behalf, may require any person in charge of any goods which such officer has reason to believe to have been imported, or to be about to be exported, by land from, or to, any foreign territory to produce the permit granted for such goods and any such goods which are dutiable and which are unaccompanied by a permit or do not correspond with the specification conta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document