1971 (2) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers and of Mr. S. Ramasubramaniam for the Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent the Court made the following order :- This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the respondent, the Collector of Customs, Madras, dated 14-9-1969, under which a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereafter referred to as the Act. 2.On 17-10-1967, two passengers, Kumar Pathar and Mohamed Mustafa, were interrogated with regard to certain packages which they had brought from Penang by s. s. State of Madras. Kumar Pathar stated that he carried the goods on behalf of Mohamed Mustafa. Mohamed Must....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....But subsequently they changed their version and reiterated what they had stated earlier. The petitioner, however stuck to his original statement denying that the goods were sent to him by his mother-in-law. The respondent thereupon was the person behind the scene and was responsible for the illicit import of the goods. He came to this conclusion only upon the statements given by Mustafa who stated that the goods were brought only for the petitioner. He also relied upon the statement of Mustafa that it was the petitioner who had arranged to pay duty on the jewellery. Having come to these conclusions he directed the confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000. 4.The question is whether this order is vitiated. The petitione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; (i)         in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding five times the value of the goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii)        in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding five times the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or one thousand rupees, whichever is greater." 5.The question is whether the conclusion of the respondent that the petitioner was concerned in the illicit import of the goods is warranted by the materials available before him. The only materials were the statements of....