Entitlement to protection under Article 20(3).

The questions that arise for determination in both these petitions are the same and I shall, therefore, deal with them together.

On 23rd September, 1958, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, seized 500 packets of 7 O’Clock blades from No. 47, Narayana Mudali Street, George Town. Each packet contained 100 blades so that in all the total number of blades seized was 50,000. On 29th September, 1958, the Collector of Central Excise sent a notice to Shankerlal, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 840 of 1958, which runs as follows:

"Whereas there is reason to believe that the goods mentioned in the schedule below have been imported without payment of customs duty and import trade control licence in contravention of section 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with section 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 and you are liable to a penalty under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act.

2. You are, therefore, called upon to show cause before the undersigned at Madras within ten days from the date hereof why a penalty should not be imposed upon you and why the said goods should not be confiscated under the aforesaid provisions of law.

3. All evidence documentary or otherwise in your possession be produced in support of your explanation, within the period specified above failing which the case will be decided ex parte.

4. You should state at the same time whether you desire to be heard in person or through your legal representative in your defence by the said authority on receipt of your reply, if necessary at time and date which will be fixed and communicated to you.

SCHEDULE.

7 O’clock blades (Made in England) — 50,000 numbers “.

On 3rd October, 1958, counsel for the petitioner wrote to the Collector of Central Excise stating that the goods had been seized far away from the border and in circumstances which could not raise any presumption against him. He further mentioned that the onus was not on the petitioner to prove that the goods had been imported without payment of duty. He also called upon the Collector of Central Excise to state the grounds of seizure because, according to him, he was entitled to that information under section 181 of the Sea Customs Act.

On 6th October, 1958, the Collector of Central Excise replied that the goods had been seized under the reasonable belief that the blades had been smuggled from the foreign territory without payment of duty. On 9th October, 1958, counsel for the petitioner replied that the letter of the Collector did not satisfy the requirements of section 181 of the Sea Customs Act. On 10th October, 1958, the Collector of Central Excise issued a summons under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act to the petitioner which runs as follows:-

”Whereas there are grounds for investigations being made in connection with the seizure of 7 O’clock blades numbering 50,000,

And whereas I consider your attendance before me necessary for producing documents of the following description in your possession or power. Documentary evidence and your account books for the receipt of the goods, viz., 7 O’clock blades if any may also be produced.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me by section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, I do hereby summon you to appear before me in the office of the Collector of Central Excise, No. 15, Harrington Road, Madras-31, on 15th October, 1958, at 10 a.m., for the purposes herein mentioned. You are warned that giving false evidence in the proceedings is an offence punishable under section 193 of the said Code.“

The case of the petitioner is that the Collector has no right whatever to summon him under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act and he has therefore come to this Court for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash these proceedings of the Collector.

The facts in Writ Petition No. 849 of 1958 are similar. A quantity of 136,400 7 O’clock blades was seized from No. 20, Narayana Mudali Street. The petitioner herein also wrote through counsel asking the Coll