- (1.) On 9/08/1961 motor-car bearing No. ASA-8688 and belonging to Hariprasad Tharad respondent in Appeal No. 1968 of 1967 was searched by the Land Customs Officer at Ulubari Police Check-post, and from the baggage compartment two packages of cinnamon suspected to be unlawfully imported from Pakistan were found. The motor-car and the packages were attached by the Land Customs Officer. The packages of cinnamon were claimed by Sanawarmal Purohit respondent in Appeal No. 1862 of 1967 as belonging to him. Notices were issued by the Collector, central Excise and Land Customs, shillong, requiring Tharad, Purobit and certain other persons to show cause why the motor-car, the packages of cinnamon and other articles attached should not be forfeited under S. 5 (8) and S. 7 (1) of the Land Customs Act, 1924, and S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 read with S. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as made applicable by S. 8 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. In response to the notice Tharad contended that at the request of Purohit the two packages of cinnamon were loaded in his motor-car which was to proceed from Shillong to Gauhati, and that he had not infringed the law. Purohit submitted that be bad purchased the two packages of cinnamon from a firm of grocers M/s. Dayalji Bhanwanji of 12/13 Amarotolla Street, Calcutta, with a view to sell them at Shillong, but when he found that he could not get even the price for which the goods had been purchased at Calcutta he decided to bring the two packages to Gauhati, and on the Way the motor-car was stopped by the Land Customs Officer and the packages of cinnamon were attached. Purohit relied upon the cash memo issued by M/s. Dayalji Bhawanji for sale of two packages of cinnamon "jhunk Brand China" for Rs. 1,998. 00/18 -. Purohit also stated that he had on 6/08/1961, travelled in a second class vehicle of the Assam State Transport from Pandu to Shillong with the two bags of cinnamon and tendered a receipt showing that he had purchased a ticket for that purpose.
(2.) A copy of a statement purporting to have been made by a representative of M/s. Dayalji Bhawanji was sent on 3/02/1962 to Tharad but not to Purohit. An enquiry was held before the Collector of Customs on 5/02/1962. At the hearing Tharad and Purohit were called upon to explain certain discrepancies between the statement made by Purohit and the information collected by the Customs Department On 18/02/1962, two packages of cinnamon were inspected by the Collector of Customs in the presence of the lawyer of Tharad and Purohit. The Collector found that the words-"chittagong- produce of China" were inscribed on the jute covering of the packages, and that there was some inscription on the outer covering of both the packages and the writing on one of them could be clearly read as "bhaibab","chandpub" which are places in Pakistan. In the view of the collector these markings were suggestive of the route by which the cinnamon packages might have been transported after their import at Chittagong (Pakistan). Enquiries were also made about the second class ticket No 04959 issued by the Assam State Transport. Shillong. The Collector, it is claimed, learned that the ticket was issued in the name of A. Singh and Luggage by bill No. 11791 dated 6/08/1961, for 11 manus 25 seers was also issued in the name, and that the clerk of the Assam State Transport, Shillong, who issued a receipt for the ticket produced by Purohit was persuaded to issue the receipt by misrepresentation of the true facts. The Collector of Customs by his letter dated 14/02/1962, called upon Purohit to explain the discrepancy and to make his statement, if any, in that behalf. Purohit by his letter dated 16/02/1962, urged that evidence which was not disclosed of the hearing and which was not relied upon in the show cause notice could not be legally used against him, and submitted that the ticket for his journey from Pandu to shillong was purchased through one Madho who had accompanied him fromcalcutta. He also claimed that he should be given an opportunity to cross- examine the clerk who had made the statement. The Collector gave no hearing thereafter to Tharad and Purohit, and on 24/05/1962, passed in order confiscating the two packages of cinnamon under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs act, 1878, read with S 19 as made applicable by S. 3 (2) of the Imports and exports (Control) Act, 1947, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500. 00 on Purohit under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and in respect of the motor-car he imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 upon Tharad with an option to redeem the motor-car.
(3.) Tharad and Purohit then moved the High court of Assam and nagaland and at Gauhati by separate petitions for writs of certiorari quashing the order of the Collector. They pleaded that the action of the Collector was vitiated because that officer had failed to hold an inquiry in the manner consistent with the rules of natural justice. The High court upheld the contention raised in the petitioners and set aside the orders of attachment and penalty. Against the orders passed by the High court, with certificate, these two appeals have been preferred.;