Customs penalty for unlawful import may proceed after clearance, and a show-cause enquiry will not be stopped without patent lack of jurisdiction.

Clearance and removal of imported goods under Section 89 of the Sea Customs Act did not extinguish the customs authorities' power to proceed against a person for unlawful import under Section 167(8), because the penalty is personal and does not depend on the goods remaining within the customs barrier. The show-cause notice and ensuing enquiry were also not without jurisdiction or premature, as the authority was entitled to investigate whether the import complied with the licence and the law, and writ interference was unwarranted absent a patent lack of jurisdiction. The proceedings were therefore allowed to continue and the petition was dismissed at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the customs authorities could initiate proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act after the goods had been cleared and removed under Section 89 of the Sea Customs Act. (ii) Whether the show-cause notice and consequent enquiry were without jurisdiction or otherwise premature on the facts stated.

Issue (i): Whether the customs authorities could initiate proceedings under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act after the goods had been cleared and removed under Section 89 of the Sea Customs Act.

Analysis: The clearance of goods under Section 89 does not exhaust the statutory power to proceed against a person concerned in an unlawful import. The scheme of the Act distinguishes between liability attached to the goods and a personal penalty imposed for the offence of illegal importation. A penalty in personam under Section 167(8) is not dependent upon the goods remaining within the customs barrier. If an offence was committed while the goods were within the barrier, the subsequent removal of the goods does not erase that offence or disable the authorities from acting upon it.

Conclusion: The customs authorities retained jurisdiction to proceed under Section 167(8) notwithstanding clearance under Section 89, and this objection fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the show-cause notice and consequent enquiry were without jurisdiction or otherwise premature on the facts stated.

Analysis: The notice called only for an explanation and investigation. At that stage, the authority was entitled to examine whether the import was in accordance with the licence and the law. A writ court does not ordinarily interdict such proceedings merely because the importer disputes the allegations or raises objections going to the merits. Interference is justified only where a patent and inherent lack of jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the record, which was not shown here.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was not without jurisdiction and the application was premature; this objection also fails.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings before the customs authorities were allowed to continue, and the petition was dismissed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: A personal penalty for unlawful import under customs law may be pursued even after the goods have been cleared, and a writ court will not stop a show-cause enquiry unless a patent want of jurisdiction is shown.

---