The term "woollen rags" should be interpreted according to its meaning in the trade, and includes different kinds of clothes, some of which may be serviceable and some unserviceable.

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

1. Messrs Bimex International-petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing order dated 23rd November 1973, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Annexure P-5), order dated 25th March, 1975, passed by the Appellate Collector, Customs (Annexure P-7) and order dated 25th November, 1975, passed by Joint Secretary to the Government of India (Annexure P-9).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case that the petitioner is a partnership concern and is engaged in the manufacture of woollen/terriwool textiles, which are sold within the country and are exported to various countries in the Middle East. From 1970 to 1976 the petitioner earned foreign exchange to the tune of about Rs. 83 lakhs by exporting goods manufactured by it. Under the import and export policy of the Government of India, the Small Scale Industries are entitled to import foreign goods to the extent of 70% of the F.O.B. value of the goods exported by them as determined by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports. On that premises the petitioner was granted import entitlement to the tune of Rs. 45 lakhs. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Government of India decided in 1967 to canalise import of various goods through the State Trading Corporation. Ever-since 1969-70, the petitioner has been importing goods of various descriptions like greasy wool, wool tops, rags and polyester fibre etc. through the State Trading Corporation. The petitioner imported various consignments of rags which have been utilized for the manufacture of different articles of wool and terrywool textiles. Over a period of time certain quantity of rags got accumulated in the factory premises. Because of paucity of space in the petitioner factory, 10 bags weighing 339.500 kgs. of rags were placed by the petitioner in the factory premises of Messrs Happy Textile Mills which is also functioning in the same premises as a sister concern. Some of the partners of the two firms are common.

3. On 2nd September, 1972, a party of the Central Excise & Customs Officer visited the premises of Happy Textile Mills and took into possession 10 bags of rags mentioned above. Even in the seizure memo, prepared at the time of taking to possession of the goods, they were described as woollen rags (used). The Superintendent of Central Excise visited the petitioners premises a few days after this seizure, Shri S.D. Mahajan, one of the partners explained the petitioners position to him. The statement of one of the partners was recorded by the Superintendent of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar on 24th January, 1973, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 . The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 6th February, 1973, calling upon it to show cause why 10 bags containing woollen garments of foreign origin be not confiscated under Section 111 read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal action be not taken against it under Section 112, ibid. The petitioner submitted that it stuck to the statement made by Shri Mahajan on 24th January, 1973. This should be treated as its reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner received a communication dated 27th February, 1973, in which an additional allegation was made to the effect that the second hand clothing recovered by the officials of the Customs could not have been legally imported into India. Therefore the Assistant Collector (Customs), Amritsar passed orders confiscating the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The petitioner went up in appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Collector of Customs. The revision filed by the petitioner also met the same fate and was dismissed by the Government of India on 25th November, 1975. Aggrieved, the petitioner field this writ petition.

4. The respondents have not filed any written statement to the writ petition.

5. No statutory