D.Basu, J. - (1.) This Rule is directed against the order dated 1-6-64, made by respondent No. 2, the Collector of Customs (vide Ann. E), by which a package containing 76700 pieces of 7 O'clock blades (made in England) has been confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act 1878, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and under the same provision, a penalty of Rs. 2,000 has been imposed on the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner is an employee of a firm named Surjamani Suresh Chandra Pal at Shillong. The petitioner's case is that the disputed safety razor blades were purchased by him from Calcutta in August, 1957 and sent from Calcutta to Shillong, hut that, finding the market dull at Shillong, the firm sent the same back to Calcutta for resale there. The petitioner was both the consignor and consignee of the Railway parcel in question but for convenience of taking delivery, the P. W Bill was forwarded to one Taslim of 58, Canning Street, Calcutta. While the said Taslim was coming out of the Railway Goods shed, the Superintendent of Customs seized the consignment and on 23-12-57 the Superintendent issued a notice to Taslim to show cause (Ann B) why penal action should not be taken against him under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act on the ground that: "there is reason to believe that the goods .....(which were found in your possession) have been imported (by you) from Pakistan into India or 17-12-57 through Sealdah Station without a valid permit....." 2a. Taslim in his explanation, asserted inter alia that he had no connection with the ownership of the consignment and that the petitioner was the owner. On 3-3-58, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Asstt. Collector explaining his case, as stated earlier (Ann C). Finding no reply, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained Rule No 3352/58 which was ultimately disposed of on consent by the order (dated 11-2-63), reproduced in para 7 of the counter-affidavit. It was agreed that the petitioner was the owner of the seized goods and the the proceedings should henceforth continue on that footing; that the petitioner shall be allowed to make his representation before the adjudicating authority and that he would abide by the order passed therein after a consideration of his representation and that "he will not be at liberty to take the defence that he was penalised without being asked to show cause against the penalty."
(3.) The petitioner, accordingly made his representation at Ann. D and after a personal hearing of the petitioner through his learned Advocate the impugned order was made and the petitioner has obtained the present Rule against that order of 1-6-64 Respondent No 2 has filed affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of all the respondents.;