F. N. ROY versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA.

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 1151 · Decided: 16-05-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1151 
the facts and circumstances as 
stated 
in the 
agreed 
statement of the case. 
We are of opinion that the 
answer was correctly 
given by the High Court of 
Bombay. The transaction 
in its· true legal character was a relinquishment of the 
managing agency and was neither a sale nor a transfer 
thereof. Therefore, the High Court correctly answered 
the question in the negative. 
In .the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed 
with 
costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
F. N. ROY 
'V. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTT A. 
(S. R.- DAS c. J., JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS, 
GovrNDA MENON and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
·sea Customs-Import without licence-Confiscation of goods-
Validity of Order-Discretion of Customs-authorities-Validity of 
Enactment-Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Vlll of 1878), ss. 167(8), 183-
Imports and Exports (Control) Act .. 1947 (XVIII of 1947), s. 3(1) 
(2)-Constitution of India, Art. 14. 
Section 167, item 8, of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, provides 
that if any goods the importation of which is for the time being 
prohibited or restricted by or under Ch. IV of the Act, which 
Chapter includes s. 19, be imported into India contrary to such 
prohibition or restriction, such goods shall be liable to confiscation 
and any person concerned in such importation shall be liable to a· 
penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods or not 
exceeding one thousand 
rupees. 
By s. 183 of this Act . it is 
provided: 
"Whenever confiscation is authorised by this Act, the 
officer adjudging it shall give the owner of the goods an option to 
pay in lieu of confiscation such fines as the officer thinks fit". The 
Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, by s. 3(1) empowers the 
Central Government by an order to make provision for prohibit-
ing, restricting, 
or . otherwise 
controlling, 
the 
import, 
export, 
carriage coast-wise . or shipment as ships' stores of goods of any 
specified description. 
Sub-section (2) of that section provides that 
all . goods to which any order under sub-s. ( 1) applies, shall be 
deemed to be goods of which the import or export has 
been 
prohibited or restricted under s. 19 0£ the Sea Customs Act, 1878, 
and all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly, 
1957 
The Commissioner 
of Income-tax, 
Bombay 
v. 
The Provident 
Investment Co., Ltd. 
S. K,Das]. 
1957 
May 16. 
1957 
F.N.Roy 
v. 
Collector of 
Customs. 
Calcutta 
Sor/;,11r ]. 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
except that s. 183 thereof shall have effect as if 
for the word 
'shall' the word 'may' are substituted. 
The petitioner imported certain goods the import of which 
had been prohibited by the Central Government under s. 3( I) of 
the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. 
By an order oL the 
Collector of Customs, made under s. 167, item 8, of the Sea 
Custoins Act, these goods were confiscated and a penalty 
of 
Rs. 
1,000, was 
imposed 
on 
the petitioner. 
The 
petitioner 
challenged the validity of this order. 
Held: (!) Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) 
Act, 1947, docs not offend 
Art. 
14 of the Constitution. 
It does 
not by its own force give any discretion to the Customs-authorities 
at all, an<l its only effect is to apply the Sea Customs Act, 1878, 
to' certain cases. 
(2) Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 
1878, 
does 
not 
authorise confiscation of goods. 
It 
assun1es 
that a power 
to 
confiscate under other provisions of the Act exists. 
It is not a 
statutory provision in two parts with regard to \Vhici': i.t may be 
sai<l that one part offends Art. 14 while the other part does not. 
1~he section contains only one statutory provision. 
(3) Section 167, item 8, of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, does 
not of1end Art. 14 of the Canstitution . 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 438 of 
1955. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
H. /. Umrigar and N. H. Hingorani, for the peti-
tioner. 
Porus A. Mehta, R. Ganapati Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, 
·for the respondents. 
1957. May 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SARKAR J.-By a notification dated March 16, 
1953, 
the Government of India gave general 
permission 
to 
all persons to import into India from certain countries 
any guods of anv of the descriptions specified in the 
schedule annexed to the notification. Among the goods 
specified in the Schedule were the following : 
Iron and steel chains of all sorts assessable under 
item 63(28) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.