- (1.) We have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed by my learned Brother Ray, J. We agree with the conclusion that respondent 1 is liable for the loss or damage to the goods and would like to briefly indicate the reasons for such conclusion.
(2.) The appellants imported 58 bales of woolen rags through the State Trading Corporation from Canada. When the goods arrived at Calcutta, the Customs authorities called upon the appellants to show cause as to why the same may not be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act (hereafter referred to as 'the Act'). After hearing the appellants, as also the State Trading Corporation, respondent 1, to which a notice was also issued, the Collector of Customs by his order of 12/03/1981 directed confiscation of the goods in exercise of power under S. 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act but in lieu of confiscation, the appellants were given the option under S. 125 of the Act to clear the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000. 00. The appellants appealed to the central Board of Excise and Customs which sustained the order of confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 20,000. 00 and directed: . After the goods are mutilated to the satisfaction of Collector of Customs, Calcutta, by the importers at their cost and under customs supervision so as to render them unfit for use except as rags and after payment of appropriate duty, the goods be released on payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000. 00 within three months hereof. The appellants then moved the central government in revision against the Board's order and in due course the revision was transferred to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal. The tribunal by its order dated 31/07/1984 gave the following direction while disposing of the appeal : . . The goods be released on payment of customs and other related duties, under T. I. 63. 02, with countervailing duty as leviable under corresponding entry in the central Excise Tariff. This is subject to Board's order about payment of redemption fine of Rs. 20,000. 00 and mutilation of the goods to the satisfaction of the Collector, at the cost of the appellants and under the supervision of the customs authorities.
(3.) The appellants then moved this court by way of appeal under S. 130-E of the Customs Act. On 17/12/1986 this court directed waiver of the redemption fine. Mr Salve for the appellants agreed to pay the duty, as directed, when delivery was to be taken of the goods. When appellants complained that a part of the goods was not traceable, notice was issued to the Calcutta Port Trust authorities and it has been joined as respondent 2 to this appeal.;