TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1964 (11) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The appellant presented a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution to the High Court of Punjab praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector dated March 21, 1959 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to take any steps against him for the realisation of the amount of penalty. 2.The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Collector had not recorded a finding that the appellant was concerned in the act of smuggling gold into the country, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Balbir Singh v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi, AIR 1960 Punj 488. On letters patent appeal, the appellate Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. The appellate Bench relied on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Union of India v. Jagdish Singh, ILR (1962) 1 Punj 369 : AIR 1962 Punj 484. It was held in that case that it was not necessary for the Collector of Customs to record a formal finding to the effect that the person proceeded against was concerned in the importing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced under Chapter IV of the Act. The offences described in the first column have reference to Sc. 18 and 19 of the Act, Section 18 prohibits the bringing into India, whether by land or sea, of the goods mentioned in its several clauses. Section 19 empowers the Central Government to prohibit or restrict by notification in the Official Gazette, the bringing or taking by sea or land goods of any specified description into or out of India across any customs frontier. It follows therefore that the person who can be penalised under S. 167(8) is one who is in any way 'concerned' in the commission of the offence of bringing into India or taking out of the country goods with respect to which certain prohibitions or restrictions exist. It is not disputed that gold cannot be brought into the country without a valid permit from the authority empowered to issue it. It is not disputed also that the gold recovered from the appellant was imported into the country illegally. The appellant can therefore be said to be concerned in the commission of the offence of illegally bringing into the country, gold, if he had been in some way responsible for such 'bringing into the country'. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hli, ILR (1959) Bombay 1771, Gopal Mayaji v. T.C. Seth, 2000 (126) E.L.T. 102 (Bom.) = AIR 1960 Bom 478: Addl. Collector of Customs v. Sitaram, AIR 1962 Cal 242; Devi Chand, J. & Co. v. Collector, Central Excise, Madras, AIR 160 Mad 281. 7.The Punjab High Court has taken a different view and we may now consider its reasons for the contrary view. 8.In Balbir Singh's case, AIR 1960 Punjab 488 there was no dispute that the Collector had not recorded a finding that the petitioner before the High Court was concerned in the offence of importation or exportation of goods which were for the time being prohibited or restricted. It was therefore held that the order imposing a penalty on the person could not be sustained. It was this case which was relied on by the learned Single Judge in the present case as the finding recorded by the Collector was as follows :- "In view of all this evidence on record I hold that the gold in question is smuggled one and was recovered from Shri Radha Kishan while he was taking the same to Pokaran in truck No. RJM 40. I therefore order confiscation of the seized gold under Section 7(i) of the Land Customs Act....... I also impose upon Shri Radha Kishan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... held that law does not require any formal finding to that effect. It is true that an omission to record a formal finding to this effect may not be fatal to the imposition of the penalty by the Collector, but the order of the Collector must show that had considered this aspect of the matter. The order should clearly indicate what matters he had considered to have a bearing on the question of the person's being concerned in illegal importation of the goods and why he had concluded therefrom that that person was so concerned and therefore liable to pay the penalty under S. 167(8) of the Act. The decision of the High Court in Jagdish Singh's case, ILR (1962) 1 Punj 369: AIR 1962 Punj 484 does not appear to hold to the contrary. It is said at p. 486 (of AIR) : "What has to be ascertained is whether the Tribunal's mind was directed to a certain matter and whether the Tribunal did, in fact, arrive at a particular conclusion. In the present case, I have no doubt that the Collector did conclude that Shri Jagdish Singh was responsible for the illegal importation of the watches in question and 'could not absolve himself from the infringement of the regulations". The judgmen....