TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (7) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our stained, broken and/or cracked. The Steamer Agents obtaining delivery of such consignments will be required to satisfy the Customs Authorities that the discharge is for bonafide reasons. For this purpose, they will have to produce a certificate from the Master of vessel that for specified reasons the Dunnage Wood is unusable. The consignments after discharge will be required to be given distinctive marking by sprinkling colour or Paint on the wood at the expense of the Steamer Agents in order that the identity of the full quantity can be established at the time of clearance. This comes into force immediately." Respondent No. 4, Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., is a Steamer Agent within the meaning of the notification. 3.The petitioner says that, in the month of October 1961, he entered into a contract with respondent No. 4, Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. for purchase of unserviceable dunnage wood carried by various ships belonging to the respondent company, inter alia, on terms hereinafter appearing: Our terms and conditions of sale of unserviceable dunnage wood annexed to the tender submitted by you shall form the basis of this contract, unless they conflict w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... your granting the above permission, we undertake to produce the complete Bill of Entry within four working days from the date of complete discharge of the goods, failing which we agree to pay on demand duty and penalty that may be awarded after consideration of any explanation we may offer." The petitioner says that the Customs Authorities accepted the Guarantee and permitted respondent No. 4 company to obtain discharge of the said 15 tons of wood from the said steamer into a cargo boat under the supervision of a Customs Officer and to land the goods onto 'G' Berth, King George's Dock, there to be kept under day and night Customs surveillance, until appraisement of customs duty. The respondent No. 4 wrote a letter to S. K. Mohammed and Sons, authorised customs clearing agents, on October 5, 1961, asking them to fill up the necessary customs papers for clearance of 15 tons of dunnage wood sold to the petitioner. The landing of the goods, the petitioner says, was commenced on October 6, 1961 and was completed on October 9, 1961. The boat employed in the unloading was boat No. C-13729 owned by one Girish Munni Chauduri, and was manned by a crew consisting, amongst others, of one S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rying the dunnaged wood moved to 'G' berth on 7-10-1961 without any Green Boat Note from alongside the vessel s.s. Jalakirti under the instruction of Shri O. P. Singh of M/s. Narayan Timber Works. This discloses an offence under section 76 of the Sea Customs Act attracting penal provision of section 167(29) ibid. Since M/s. Narayan Timber Works are the purchaser of the Dunnage Wood in question and were instrumental in landing the excess quantity, in contravention of the provisions of section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, they are also deemed to be the persons concerned within the meaning of section 167(8) ibid and they are liable to penal action under Section 167(3), and (8) of the said Act. M/s Narayan Timber Works are, therefore, directed to show cause and explain in writing within 7 days hereof why penal action should not be taken against them under section 167(3), (8) and (29) of the Sea Customs Act. 6.The action against the petitioner was stated on the statements of certain Manjhi and Dandees (boat-men), to which reference will hereinafter be made. In his reply, dated November 2, 1961, the petitioner denied the charges and his knowledge of the activities, as alleged, of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Works pay, in lieu of confiscations, fine of Rs. 6000 (Rupees six thousand) only the said seized wood may be released to them. I also impose a personal penalty of Rs. 4000 (Rupees four thousand) only under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and of Rs. 1000 (Rupees one thousand) only under section 167(3) of the Sea Customs Act on the Timber Works. The personal penalty would be paid within a week hereof." 10.Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order and for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel and or withdraw the said order and to release the seized goods. He obtained this Rule. 11.The grounds on which the petitioner disputes the validity of the impugned order are : (a) that the petitioner was not instrumental in the importation of the excess dunnage wood and was not the person concerned in the importation thereof. (b) that the petitioner was found guilty and penalised without the foundation of any evidence against him. (c) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arantee. 20.In particular, I deny that the alleged statements were extorted from the Manjhi and Dandees by me or at instance as alleged or that the said statements were extorted in the hope of receiving any reward or that I influenced the Manjhi or Dandees to make the statement or offered them sums of money by way of gratification or used any form of intimidation or coercion for obtaining the statements as falsely alleged therein or at all. I say that the information regarding the off-loading of an excess quantity of dunnage wood from s. s. Jalakirti by Messrs. Narayan Timber Works was received by me. Then I and Shri S. N. Gupta another Intelligence Officer went to the spot to collect information and to ascertain the true position and whatever statements were made by the Manjhi and Dandees of the cargo boat were recorded by me and the other officer in normal course of our official duties. I took up and carried on the investigation of the case as a part of my normal duty without any question of getting any reward. As a matter of fact the Manjhi and Dandees voluntarily stated the bare facts which were recorded. Further, the Manjhi of the Cargo boat came to the Customs House of his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in fact he had made a gift of the boat to his nephew Girish Munni Chaudhuri and the latter ran the boat, as the owner, for profit. O. P. Singh did not direct the said boat to remove the dunnage wood in excess of 15 tons. (c) that the unloading was done under the supervision of Customs Officer - one Mr. Murray, who was paid a special fee for the supervision. (d) that Satu Manjhi did not make the incriminating statement voluntarily, which was being relied upon by the Customs authorities. That O. P. Singh did not make Satu Manjhi put his signature on another blank piece of paper, and that paper was not converted into the other statement of Satu Manjhi. The second statement of Satu Manjhi, purporting to bear the date October 13, 1961, on which the petitioner relied, is annexure 'P' to the petition and reads as follows :- "As per your directions I got my boat attached with the steamship Jalakirti at a shed K. G. D. on the 6th October, 1961. After loading you gave me G. B. Note and I got the boat berthed. But due to rain your coolie would not unload the same. It was unloaded on the 10th October, by 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....read out to the Manjhi. After hearing the Manjhi put the thumb impression in my presence'. "The above endorsement purports to have been signed by one Girish Munny Chowdhury of 135; Moharshi Devendra Road, Calcutta. From the style of the writing of the endorsement the rest of the contention of the documents also appear to have been written out by the same Girish Munny Chowdhury. There is no indication of the place where the alleged statement has been recorded. It bears the date 13-10-1961 in the letter and figures which are smaller in size than the rest of the figures and the Hindi letters in the same document. It does not indicate the presence of any person at the time of the recording of the alleged statement. There is nothing in the document that indicates that the statement had been accepted as true and correct by the person whose statement it purports to be." (b) In his evidence before the respondent No. 1 adjudicator Satu Manjhi said that the paper containing his purported statement was blank when he put his thumb impression. He further said that no statement was forcibly taken from him by the Customs Officers and such statements did not contain a falsehood. He also stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supplied to the Timber Works. At no stage any desire has been expressed to cross- examine these Dandees or any other person except Satu Manjhi and an unnamed Customs Officer." (c) "Master's evidence in the present case, consisting of his statement (or certificate dated 13-10-1961, his certificate dated 14-10-1961 (last two being enclosures to the letter of the Scindia's dated 6-11-1961), is also worthless and unworthy of reliance. The Scindia themselves have not enhanced the veracity of the Master, and the reputation of the manner in which affairs appear to be managed on their ships, by permitting Shri T. R. Bhavnani to include in their letter dated 6-11-1961 the following : "This confusion arose mainly due to the fact that the Master of the vessel, Captain M. M. Kothswala, was absent on leave from ship from 1-9-1961 to 9-9-1961 and rejoined on 10-9-1961 and on the same date a new Chief Officer took over from Mr. Kambjoj who was relieved from the vessel that date. There is good gap by any standards between 10-9-1961 and 13-10-1961 for any Master to be acquainted with the correct state of affairs on board his ship." (d) "I am prepared to concede that the unnamed Customs Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ober 13 and 14, 1961, should not have been considered by respondent No. 1 in the absence of the Master or Bhavanani of respondent No. 4 company being called to give evidence. In my opinion, there is a point in this criticism. In the case of Union of India v. T.R. Verma (A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 882) the Supreme Court was pleased to observe : "Stating it broadly and without intending it be exhaustive, it may be observed that rules of natural justice rquire that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witness examined by that party and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given the opportunity of explaining them. If these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed. Explaining the above decision, their Lordships of the Supreme Court further observed in the case of State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa (AI.R. 1963 S.C. 375): "What was actually under consider....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 1 relied, other than Satu Manjhi, was a violation of the principles of natural justice. 20.The refusal of opportunity to the petitioner to examine Girish Munni Manjhi and the several Customs Officers, including Mr. Murray, was a worse example of violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent No. 1, it appears, was at first inclined to give an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the evidence of Satu Manjhi, after he had turned hostile at the enquiry, on January 6, 1962. Why the respondent No. 1 changed his mind thereafter, I have hereinbefore quoted from his adjudication order. The reasonings are faulty and reveal a mind somewhat made up against the petitioner, even before he heard the evidence indicated by the petitioner in his letter dated January 8, 1962. His finding that the second statement of Satu Manjhi, on which, the petitioner relied, was a piece of forgery, without giving to the petitioner an opportunity of showing that it was not quasi judicial fairplay. Further, he too much anticipated what the petitioner would succeed in extracting of the Customs Officers, whom the petitioner had asked for being called. 21.The introduction of the statements of the....