S V M SYED CASSIM Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SYED Cassim, the petitioner in this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Central excise, Madras, dated 22-10-1960, is the lessee of the island called Muyaltheevu which lies off the coast of Ramanathapuram Dt. near Pamban. On 29-6-1960 the custom,, Preventive Inspector, Mandapam, seized the petitioner's cargo boat No. 101 carrying 25 bundles of cocoanut leaf thatties from Muyaltheevu to Vedalai on ramanathapuram coast. The said boat was under the control of tindal Hamid sultan at the time. On 13-7-1960 the Superintendent of the Customs Preventive circle, Ramanathapuram, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the boat should not be confiscated under S. 168 of the Sea customs Act on the ground that the cocoanut leaf thatties were attempted to be landed at Vadalai which was not declared a port for landing of goods and hence punishable under S. 167 (2) and (3) and See. 168 of the Sea Customs Act. On 20-7-1960 the petitioner is said to have submitted an explanation stating that the produce of the island were all perishable and non-dutiable goods and that all along such produce were landed at Vadalai without any restrictions. Later, That is on 19-9-1960, the petitioner asked his counsel to appear before the Collector of central Excise Madras to make re-presentations about the charge contained in the show cause notice. Without hearing his counsel the collector passed the impugned order.

(2.) BY the order the Collector gave an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 50 and the confiscated boat on payment of a fine of Rs. 1000. In addition, the collector also imposed a penalty of Es. 500 on the petitioner and also a similar penalty on the, tindal under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with the contentions of counsel for the petitioner I may advert to a preliminary objection taken by the Additional Government Pleader regarding the maintainability of this application. Against the order of the Collector of Central excise an appeal is provided to the Central Board of Revenue under the Sea customs Act. Counsel for the respondent contended that would be an adequate and appropriate remedy, and, in the absence of any explanation by the petitioner in his affidavit showing why that remedy was not availed of the, extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked.