Palasamy Nadar V. Lanktree

1949 Present: Gratiaen J.

PALASAMY NADAR et al., Petitioners, and LANKTREE
(Principal Collector of Customs), Respondent

S. C. 402-IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A MANDATE IN
THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS UNDER SECTION 42 OF
THE COURTS ORDINANCE (CAP. 6)

Writ of mandamus-Customs Ordinance-Seizure and forfeiture of goods-Claim by person from whom they were seized-Computation of time prescribed for giving notice of claim and, tendering security-Detention of goods for examination--Does not amount to seizure-Sections 46, 123, 146.

Where there is a claim to seized goods under section 146 of the Customs Ordinance the period of one month within which notice of the claim should be given to the Collector should be reckoned from the date when the goods were seized with the intention that " ultimate loss " by forfeiture and condemnation would result from the seizure.

The power of seizure conferred by section 123 of the Customs Ordinance includes by implication the power, for the purpose of examination, to detain for a reasonable period any goods which a Customs officer suspects to be liable to be seized as forfeited goods.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandamus on the Principal Collector of Customs directing him to accept a notice of claim tendered to him by the petitioners under section 146 of the Customs Ordinance.

H. V. Perera, K.C., with C. Suntheralingam, for petitioners.

R. R. Crossette-Thambiah, Solicitor-General, with H. W. R. Weerasooriya, Crown Counsel, and B. C. F. Jayaratne, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

October 1, 1949. GRATIAEN J.-

Certain facts relating to these proceedings are not in dispute. On May 11, 1949, the petitioners obtained from the Controller of Exports

a licence to export to a firm in Madras 129 tons of motor accessories of various descriptions specified with elaborate detail in the licence. Purporting to act on the authority of this licence they caused a number of packages containing motor spare parts to be loaded into a brig named "Patucul Cani" which was berthed in the Port of Colombo. On 17th May, before the vessel had sailed, information was received by the Customs .authorities which aroused their suspicions in regard to this cargo. The vessel was closely watched, and at 10 a.m. on 20th May three Assistant Preventive Officers boarded her after first sending a ' message to a representative of the petitioner's firm notifying him of their intention to examine the cargo. Four other Customs officers followed the original party on board. One of them, named Brohier, examined certain cases which were lying on deck and he was satisfied that they contained motor spares which were covered by the licence. In the stern of the vessel, however, he discovered other packages containing goods which in his opinion were not covered by the. licence. In the meantime some of the other Customs officers, including Aluwihare, had examined further packages and come to the conclusion that they too contained goods not covered by the licence or. in some cases, goods covered by the licence but in excess of the authorised weight. Further detailed examination of the goods on board with a view to investigating the extent of the suspected contravention of the terms of the licence was in the very nature of things impracticable. The entire cargo, including the goods which Brohier had satisfied himself to be beyond suspicion and therefore not liable to forfeiture as contraband, were "detained" (I use this non-committal term in my summary of the facts in view of the legal arguments which were addressed to me at the hearing of the present application).

On returning ashore Aluwihare duly reported the action taken by himself and his brother-officers to the Deputy Collector of Customs who gave instructions that all the goods should be re-landed. Mr. Christoffelsz, who was then the Principal Collector of Customs, was summoned fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document