THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BARODA versus DIGVIJAYSINHJI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 12-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

196z 
April I2, 
( 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
THE COLLECTOR OF CU$TOMS, BARODA 
v. 
DIGVIJAYSINHJI SPINNING & WEAVING 
MILLS LTD. 
(IC SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Import-Confiscation of goods b_y Collector of Customs-
Penalt_y substituted for confiscation b_y Board of Revenue, if can be 
realised bJ the Collector of Customs-Sea Customs Act, r878 (VIII 
of 1878), SS. I67(8), I93. 
The respondent imported goods of higher value than what 
was granted under his licence. The Collector of Customs order-
ed the goods to be confiscated under s. r67(8) of the Sea Customs 
Act, +878 and in lieu of confiscation gave an option to the res-
pondent to a fine. 
On appeal the Central Board of Revenue set 
aside the order of the Collector of Customs and instead of it 
imposed a penalty. The respondent did not pay the penalty and 
the Collector of Customs took proceedings under s. r93 of the Act 
for;the recovery of the penalty in pursuance of which a Magis-
trate issued warrants of attachment against the respondent hold-
ing that the Collector of Customs could validly realise the penalty 
under s. r93 of the Act. The Sessions Judge dismissed the res-
pondents application in revision but the High Court held that 
as the penalty was imposed by the Central Board of Revenue 
the Collector of Customs could not realise the amount of the 
penalty under s. r93 of the Act and also held that the order of 
the Central Board of Revenue commuting the confiscation to 
penalty was not without jurisdiction. On appeal by special 
Jeave 1 
Held, that the Central Board of Revenue which is the 
"Chief Customs Authority" cannot be called an "officer of cu·s-
toms", and the order of the Chief Customs Authority imposing 
a penalty for the first time cannot be treated to be an order of 
the Collector of Customs within the meaning of s. r93 of the 
Sea Customs Act, r873, andl as such the Collector of Customs 
could not realise the penalty imposed by the Central Board of 
Revenue. 
Rangaswam_y v. Alaga_yammal, A.LR. (r9r5) Mad. n33, 
Kristnamachariar v. Mangammal, (1902) I.L.R. 26 Mad. gr and 
Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, (r940) 
F.C.R. 84, held not applicable. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 74 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 8, 1957, of the Bombay High 
' ' 
• 
I 
' 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
897 
Court at Rajkot in Criminal Revision Application No. 
10 of 1956. 
B. K. Khanna and T. llf. Sen, for the appellant. 
Rame~hwr:tr Nath, S. N. Arulley and P. L. Vohra, 
for the respondent. 
1961. April 12. 
The Judgment of the· Court was 
delivered by. 
SuBBA RAo, J.-This appeal by special leave is 
against the order of the Bombay High Court at Raj-
kot setting aside the warrants of attachment issued by 
the First Class Magistrate, J amnagar, for enforcing 
the penalty imposed on the respondent under s. 193 
of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, (hereinafter called the 
Act). 
The material facts may be briefly stated. The res-
pondent is Digvijayasinhji Spinning & Weaving Mills 
Limited, Jamnagar. It imported 275 cases of second-
hand looms under one consignment and 175 cases of 
second-hand textile waste to plant machinery under 
another consignment from Pondicherry. The respon-
dent held licences for import of goods of a lesser value 
than the value of these consignments. The Collector 
of Customs, Baroda, ordered the said goods to be con-
fiscated under s. 167(8) of the Act; and in lieu of con-
fiscation an option was given to the respondent to pay 
a fine of Rs. 22,918 and Rs. 16,000 in respect of the 
two consignments. Further, on the ground that the 
respondent had understated the value of the goods 
imported under the first consignment, the appellant im-
posed a penalty of Rs. 500 under s.167(37)(c) of the Act. 
Against the said order, the respondent preferred two 
appeals to the Central Board of Revenue and the said 
Board, by its order dated January 15, 1954, set aside 
the orders of the appellant and instead imposed a 
penalty of Rs. 22,918 in regard to the first consign-
ment and Rs. 16,000 in regard to the other under 
s. 167(8) of the Act; but the penalty of Rs. 500 was 
however maintained. In revision the Government of 
India modified the order of the Central Board of 
Revenue by cancelling the penalty of Rs. 500 and in 
II3 
Collector of 
Cus~oms, Baroda 
v. 
Digvijaysinhji 
Spinning & 
Weaving Mills 
Ltd. 
Subba Rao ]. 
Ig6r 
Collector of 
Cus
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.