JAGADISAN, BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, RAMACHANDRA.IYER
M. Shaik Dawood – Appellant
Versus
The Collector of Central Excise, Madras – Respondent
The petitioner landed at Nagapattinam from Penang in October, 1957 and brought with him 84 wrist watches valued at Rs. 4,200. He held no permit for their importation and these goods were concealed. They were seized by the Superintendent of Central Excise at Nagapattinam. Thereafter he was served with a notice to show cause why (1) the wrist watches should not be confiscated and (2) why a penalty should not be imposed on him under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. As there was no dispute that the petitioner had smuggled these goods into India, the Collector ordered their confiscation and also imposed the penalty. The penalty that he imposed was as stated earlier, the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000. Though in the petition the validity of the order of confiscation was also challenged this ground has now been abandoned and the only point urged before me was as regards the legality of the amount of personal penalty to which
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.