TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (2) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms Act, and we propose to deal with them by this common judgment. 2.We will first take Civil Appeal No. 803 of 1962 which has been filed by special leave by the British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. against the decision of the Central Board of Revenue pronounced on January 7, 1960, as well as the decision of the Central Government pronounced on May 27, 1961. The offending ship is `Santhia' and the fine imposed is Rs. 42,500/-. So far as this appeal is concerned, for the reasons given by us in dismissing Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1962 [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1392 (S.C.)], it also fails and must be dismissed with costs. 3.Civil Appeal No. 374 of 1961 and Writ Petition No. 121 of 1959 have been filed by Everett Orient Line Incorporated. The o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso dismissed on July 7, 1961. It is against this order of the Letters Patent Bench that the appellant has come to this Court in the present appeal. 5.Civil Appeal No. 312 of 1963 has been preferred by the Everett Orient Line Incorporated against the order of the Collector of Customs imposing a fine of Rs. 26 lakhs in lieu of confiscation of the vessel `Rutheverett'. The order was passed on October 1, 1960. The appellant has come to this court by special leave directly against this order. 6.The remaining three Writ Petition Nos. 2-4 of 1963 have been filed by the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., the offending ships being `State of Bihar', `State of Uttar Pradesh', and `State of Bihar' respectively. These writ petitions have been fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late authority, a revision also lies. That being so, we would have hesitated to entertain these appeals if each one of them had come separately for hearing before us. In fact, the question as to whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court could be successfully invoked by a party immediately after an order is passed against him by the Collector of Customs under Section 167(12A) and Section 183, does not appear to have been argued before the Calcutta High Court when it entertained the writ proceedings from which Appeal No. 299 of 1963 has been brought to this Court. As was observed by this Court in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1327 (S.C.) = (1962) 1 SCR 753, the rule that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have allowed the counsel to argue these writ petitions on the question of construction alone. 9.Besides, it appears that these writ petitions and C.A. No. 299 of 1963 purport to raise a question about the validity of Section 52A of the Sea Customs Act and that may have weighed in favour of admitting the said matters : but as we have held in Civil Appeal No. 770 of 1962 [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1392 (S.C.)] the foreign companies whose vessels have contravened Section 52A and in respect of which penalties have been imposed under Section 167(12A) read with Section 183, are not entitled to claim the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and so, that plea fails. 10.In regard to the Shipping Corporation of India ....