INDO-CHINA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LID. versus JASJIT SINGH, ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 03-02-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
INDO-CffiNA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LID. 
v. 
JASJIT SINGH, ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF 
CUSTOMS & ORS. 
(P. B. GAJBNDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. 
DAS GUPTA, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Sea Customs-Prohibitr"on of entry of certain types of ships in India-
Section 
S2A 
when 
applicable-Whether mens rea necessary-
Nature of liability under s. 167(12A)--Section 167(12A) and 
s. 183-Petition under Art. 136 when competent-When is a body 
or authority a Court-Whether the Central Board of Revenue or 
Central Government a Tribunal under Art. 136---Whether penalty 
of Rs. 25 lacs excessive-Whether s. 52A ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 
and 31 (I) and hence invalid-Constitution of India, Art. 13~ea 
Customs Act, 1878, ss. 52A, 167(12A), 183, 188, 190A and 191. 
The appellant carries on the business of carriage of goods and 
passengers by sea and own• a fleet of ships for that purpose. One of 
its ships named Eastern Saga arrived at Calcutta and was rummaged 
by the Calcutta Customs Officers. In the sailors' accommodation, a hole 
measuring 2i"X5t" was found in the wall panelling behind the back 
batton of a wooden seat which had been screwed to the wall. The bole 
was covered with a piece of wood and over-painted. The hole opened 
into a space and in that space, Customs Officers found 1,4S8 bars of 
gold valued at more than Rs. 23 lacs. Notices were duly served and 
after hearing the parties, the AJditional Collector of Customs came to 
the conclusion that the vessel had rendered itself liable to confiscation 
under s. !67(12A) because it had infringed the provisions of s. S2A. 
He ordered the confiscation of the ship but gave the owners thereof an 
option to pay a fine of Rs. 25 lacs in lieu of confiscation. The appellant 
went in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue but that appeal was 
rejected. The appellant went in revision to the Central Government 
but the revision petition was also dismissed. 
The appellant then came 
to this Court for special leave and obtained the same. 
Dismissing the 
appeal, 
Held: (i) The Custom• authorities were right in holding that the 
facts proved in the case showed that the "Eastern Saga" nor contravened 
the provisions of s. 52A when it entered the port of Calcutta and hence 
had incurred the liability prescribed by s. !67(12A) of the Sea Customs 
Act. 
(ii) The fine of Rs. 25 13cs was not excessive. 
IDegal importation 
of gold had assumed the proportions of a major problem facing the 
country and it was open to the Customs authorities to take the view 
that the best way to check smuggling was to impose deterrent fines 
whenever those offences were discovered and proved. 
(iii) Section 52A was not ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 and 31(1) and 
beace was not unconstitutional or invalid. 
The appellant was not only 
' 
6 s.c R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
595 
a company but also a foreign company and as such was not entitled to 
1964 
claim the benefits of Art. 19. The plea under Art. 31(!) as well as 
-.-
under s. 14 could not be sustained for the simple reason that in support· lndoN Ch!~
1 Steam 
ing the said two pleas, the appellant had inevitably to fall back upon 
""'~~ on 
the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19( I )(fl. 
Jtujit Sing~ 
Before an appeal can be entertained under Art. 136, two conditions 
have to be satisfied. The order impugned must be an order of a judicial 
or quasi~juOicial character and should not be purely an administrative 
or evecutive order. The sid order should have been passed either by 
a Court or Tribunal in the territory of India. It is difficult to lay 
down any definite test to determine whether a body is a court/tribunal 
or not. Sometimes, courts enquire whether that body or authority is 
clothed with the trappings of a court. whether it can compel witnesses 
to appear before it and administer oath to them, whether it was required 
to follow certain rules of procedure, whether it was bound to comply 
with the rules of natural justice whether it was etpected to tieal with 
the matters before it fairly, justly and on merits and. not be guided by 
subjective considerations and whether it was required to adopt judicial 
or quasi-judicial approach. 
If all or some of the important tests are 
satisfied the proceeding"S can be 
characterised as judicial proceedings 
and the test of "trappings" is satisfied. Likewise, if it appears that 
such a body or authority has been constitute'd by the legislature and 
on it has b

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