AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29th December, 1986 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive ). The facts of the case are stated hereafter.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has been carrying on business of general merchandise and importer and exporter of various goods. In course of his business he obtained trade licence from the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as also the Importer's Code Number from the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Calcutta.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to an agreement between the petitioner and M/s. Syarikat Nyalchand Motichand of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the said foreign supplier) the said foreign suppliers shipped 94 bales containing 280 cartons of Staple Pins (hereinafter referred to as the said goods) to Calcutta. The price in respect of the said goods was agreed to be paid by the petitioner on documents against payment basis. The said goods were shipped by the said foreign supplier from Singapore to Calcutta on 6th September 1985.

( 4 ) THE said goods arrived at the Port of Calcutta on or about 28th September, 1985. According to the petitioner, the said goods were imported by the petitioner in the ordinary and usual course of his business under REP Transferable Licence in terms of Appendix 17 of the Import and Export Policy - April 1985 to March 1988.

( 5 ) AFTER the arrival of the said goods at the Port of Calcutta, and before the petitioner could file the Bill of Entry along with Import Licences in respect thereof, 93 bales out of 94 bales of the said goods were seized by the Customs authorities on 10. 10. 1985. The remaining one bale of the said goods was thereafter seized on 5. 12. 1985. After the seizure of the said goods the authorities kept the said goods under their custody and control. It is significant that although the said goods were seized by the concerned Customs authorities in October and December 1985 as aforesaid, the petitioner was not favoured with any seizure list by the concerned authorities in that behalf.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, on or about 19. 11. 1985 the petitioner received a summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, dated 13. 11. 1985. In the said summons it was, inter alia alleged that there were grounds for investigation being made in connection with the seizure of 93 bales of Staple Pins. It was further alleged in the said summons that the Superintendent of Customs considered the attendance of the petitioner necessary for giving evidence or producing documents or things viz. Import Licence Bill of lading, invoice, packing List and so on. On or about 4th December, 1985 the petitioner made a statement before the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) inter alia stating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thereafter on or about 4th April 1986 the petitioner received a show cause notice being Notice No. SI (VII-75/85 SI (VII-l03/85 dated 1. 4. 1986 inter alia alleging that the petitioner failed to produce any trade licence in the name of Crescent Commercial Corporation to show the place of business of the petitioner. It was further alleged in the said show cause notice that as from the available evidence concerning 94 bales of staple pins the petitioner's firm is not in existence at the notified address at 21/a, Canning Street, Calcutta which indicates that the petitioner's firm is a fictitious party.

( 7 ) BY the said show cause notice the petitioner was called upon to explain the matter in writing and to show cause to the Collector of Customs (Preventive) within 20 days from the date as to why the goods under seizure should not be confiscated under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penal action should not be taken against the petitioner under Section 112 of the said Act

( 8 ) THE said show cause notice is a composite notice directed against several persons to show cause why the concerned seized goods should not be confiscated.

( 9 ) IT may b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document