TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (3) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for switching the shipment over to April/June, 1962. The petitioner firm thereafter made arrangements for shipment of a consignment of 435 bales of Hessian Cloth by s.s. "City of Singapore' and submitted shipping bills alongwith G.R.-I Forms with the Customs authorities on June 1,1962. The gain resulting from the sale of goods was allowed to the buyers and their profit was discounted from the sale price for subsequent shipment and shown accordingly in the shipment bills and G.R.-I forms which was thus not the full export value of the goods. On June 5,1962 Shantimoy Mukherjee Customs Sarkar of the petitioner firm and M.V. Ashar appeared before the Customs Appraiser and supplied to him all information regarding the consignment. The Appraiser apparently satisfied dictated to them a letter to be written by the petitioner Firm to the Customs authorities on the basis whereof the consignment could be permitted to be exported. In the letter of June 5,1962 the adjustment of price as aforesaid was admitted on behalf of the petitioner firm and it was further stated that there was no malafide in the account and the firm did not want any show cause memo and would agree to abide by the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. The Board, however, felt that the fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- in lieu of confiscation was rather excessive and accordingly reduced the fine to Rs. 1,85,000/- and directed the refund of Rs. 1,15,000/- which the petitioner has received without prejudice. The petitioner firm then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated June 6, 1962 and December 10,1963 and to refund the aforementioned amounts of Rs. 1,85,000/- as well as the sum of Rs. 50,000/- imposed as personal penalty. Sabyasachi Mukherji, J., learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, (as he then was) proceeded to consider the case on the assumption that the facts stated in the order of the Additional Collector to the effect that the petitioner firm waived its right to receive show cause notice and M.V. Ashar repeated the request for disposal of the case without issuing any show cause notice. Learned single Judge held that even according to the Customs authorities a declaration was filed under Section 12(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 which was incorrect and untrue. Learned single Judge placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Unio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated in the above documents. On June 5,1962 M.V. Ashar appeared on behalf of the petitioner firm and submitted a letter mentioning therein that the firm did not want any show cause memo and would agree to abide by the decision of Customs authorities. The petitioner firm subsequently took the stand that M.V. Ashar had no authority on its behalf to waive the issue of show cause memo or to agree to abide by the decision of the Customs authorities. However, the said stand has not been believed by any of the Customs authorities or even by the High Court. It may be noted that in the meantime s.s. "City of Singapore" left without taking the consignment. The Additional Collector of Customs in these circumstances passed an order on June 6,1962. It is, therefore, important to note that it is a case where undervaluation in respect of full export value of goods was detected even before goods were actually shipped or exported. In view of the fact that the representative of the petitioner firm was in a hurry and pressing hard for exporting the goods, it was clearly stated in the letter dated 5th June, 1962 waiving the issuance of any show cause notice and agreed to abide by the decision of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....controversy had arisen after the export of goods. In that context in Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. Rai Bahadur Shree Ram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. & Ors. (supra) the Court observed as under: "If we are to hold that every declaration which does not state accurately the full export value of the goods exported is a contravention of the restrictions imposed by S. 12(1) then all exports on consignment basis must be held to contravene the restrictions imposed by S. 12(1). Admittedly S. 12(1) governs every type of export. Again it is hard to believe that the legislature intended that any minor mistake in giving the full export value should be penalised in the manner provided in S. 23(A). The wording of S. 12(1) does not support such a conclusion. Such a conclusion does not accord with the purpose of S. 12(1)." The Court further observed as under : "There are two facts in every export, one relating to the goods exported and the other relating to the foreign exchange earned as a result of the export. Broadly speaking the former aspect is dealt with by the Customs authorities and the latter either by the Reserve Bank or by the Director of Enforcement.......These provisions go to indicate that....