- (1.) -ON October 17, 1959, the establishment of the respondent No. 1, who carries on business as importer and dealer of watches, at No. 129, Radhabazar Street, Calcutta, was searched by the customs authorities. 390 pieces of wrist watches were seized by the customs authorities on the ground that these watches were not lawfully or validly imported. On January 27, 1960, 43 out of the said 3:90 watches were released by the customs authorities. A further lot of 64 watches were released on September 5, 1960, leaving a balance of 283 watches which still remained in the custody of the customs authorities. A notice dated August 12, 1960, was served upon the respondent calling upon it to produce documentary evidence in support of legal importation of 283 watches, within one week. In this notice it was stated that failing production of sufficient evidence as required, the respondent No. 1 was to show cause why the said 283 watches should not be confiscated under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. It is necessary to set out the material portion of the said notice which is as follows :- "the importation of watches into India without a valid import Trade Licence is prohibited under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with section 3 (1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry order No. 17155, dated 7. 12. 55 (as amended), the offence being punishable under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with section 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. In view of the foregoing M/s. Kanungo and Co. are required to explain the matter in writing within one week from the date of receipt of this notice. They are also called upon to show cause in writing within the same period of time why the said 280 pieces of watches should not be confiscated under section 167 (8) Sea Customs Act read with section 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and why penal action should not be taken against them under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. "
(2.) THE respondent No. 1 therefore moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi which was disposed of by an order made by consent on January 25, 1962, on the following terms:- "this Rule is disposed of by consent. It is agreed that the customs authorities shall decide grounds 10, 11 and 13 mentioned in paragraph 27 of the petition on which this Rule was issued as preliminary issues first of all. If the customs authorities decide the preliminary issues against the petitioner, then only they will be entitled to proceed with the case against the petitioner on merits. It is further agreed that the petitioner shall file its explanations showing cause against the charges leveled against it within a fortnight from today and the customs authorities shall take up the case against the petitioner within one week, thereafter. It is also agreed that the customs authorities shall deliver a judgment on the preliminary issues and then proceed with the case, if at all. The petitioner will have liberty to move against the preliminary judgment if it likes. "
(3.) IN terms of the said order the customs authorities considered the preliminary issues mentioned therein and decided them against the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by this Order the respondent No. 1 again moved a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi. At the hearing of the said rule, the learned counsel for the customs authorities made certain concessions, which were recorded in the order by which the said rule was disposed of, which are as follows: - "with the two clarifications agreed upon by Mr. Kar namely (1) that if the petitioner is found guilty of having violated the order under section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Order made in 1955 and (2) if it be found to have imported watches across the customs frontiers as notified under section 3a of the Sea Customs Act, then only the charge will be taken as established. I do not think that the charge leveled against the petitioner suffers from vagueness as complained of by the petitioner any longer. With the two clarifications made in the charge the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner should now proceed. Subject to the clarifications as hereinbefore made, I discharge the Rule. Let the adjudication proceedings against the petitioner now proceed on the charges as hereby clarified. ";