1981 (2) TMI 89

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the lorry was also seized and the driver was arrested. In the mahazar the value of the lorry was shown at Rs. 40.000/- however, the Assistant Controller of Central Excise and Customs released the said lorry to the petitioner on his depositing the sum of Rs. 5.000/- in cash and also executing a bond for Rs. 70,000/-. One of the conditions in the bond so executed was that the petitioner would produce the lorry as and when required by the specified Customs Authorities or Courts. Further under the terms of the bond, if he failed to do so a sum of Rupees 70,000/- was recoverable from the petitioner and also the security deposit of Rs. 5.000/- was liable to be forfeited. 2.  By a letter dated 12-7-1976 the 1st respondent herein called upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lished on evidence that the lorry was liable to be confiscated. In other respects the appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by the two orders referred to above, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for redress. 5.  Sri B.T. Chhabria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that both the Collector and the 2nd respondent Central Board of Excise and Customs erred in law in coming to the conclusion that the lorry was liable for confiscation inasmuch as on the date the order came to be passed the lorry was proved satisfactorily to be non-existent which fact, after investigation was accepted by the 1st respondent as evidenced by his order at para 6. When the vehicle used for carrying smuggle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t" and therefore, the contract was enforceable in so far as the Department is concerned. 7.  It is difficult to accept this argument. In clause C of the bond "any accident" referred to is undoubtedly to a road accident which would have the effect of damaging, destroying or depreciating the value of the vehicle and not events such as floods, rioting, war, earthquake, fire and such acts of God or force majeure which would render the performance of the contracts impossible to one of the parties. Both the 1st and 2nd respondents have overlooked this aspect after recording a finding of fact that the vehicle in question was destroyed at Haveri in a rioting on account of the border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra. If the term in ....