Hind Trading Company Vs. Union of
India & ANR [1968] INSC 259 (28 October 1968)
28/10/1968 BACHAWAT, R.S.
BACHAWAT, R.S.
SIKRI, S.M.
HEGDE, K.S.
CITATION: 1970 AIR 1858 1969 SCR (2) 533
CITATOR INFO :
D 1989 SC1654 (15)
ACT:
Lands Customs Act, 1924, ss. 5(3) and
7(1)--Sea Customs Act,1878, s. 167(8)--Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947,
s. 23A--Import of Chinese Dollars from Tibet via Sikkim--Dollars in two lots
covered by two licences from Reserve Bank of India--Licences shown and duty
paid at Land Customs station--Applications made for permits to allow goods to
cross frontier--Subsequently one lot found with wrong
application--Effect--Whether any offence under above provisions committed--S.
5(3) of Land Customs Act whether requires permit to accompany goods to ultimate
destination--Certiorari to Tribunal when lies.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant imported 1,65,000 pieces
Chinese silver dollars from Tibet through Sikkim State under two Reserve Bank
import licences. As there were two licences the dollars were divided into two
lots. One lot bore the mark 'H.D.' and the other 'H.N.' The appellant made two
applications hearing Nos. 32 and 34 to the Officer-in- charge, Land Customs
Station, for the grant of permits for passing the goods across the frontier. Application
No. 32 related to the lot marked 'H.N.' and the application No. 34 related to
the lot marked 'H.D.' On May 16, 1957 the two consignments arrived at the land
customs station, Kalimpong and were examined and appraised by the land customs
officer- in-charge of the station. On the duty being paid, the officer endorsed
the applications certifying that the duty was paid and permitting the import of
the goods.'The consignments there were then delivered at Siliguri to the
carriers for carriage by air to Dum Dum. On May 17, 1957 one consignment
together with application No. 34 was sent by plane from the Sonapur airstrip
and on the same date reached Dum Dum and was delivered to the appellant at
Calcutta. On May 18, 1957 the Range Officer, Matidhar seized the second
consignment bearing the marks 'H.D.' together with application No. 32 when they
were about to be despatched from the Sonapur airstrip. The seizure was made
under s. 5(3) of the Land Customs Act on the ground that the mark on the
consignment was 'H.D.'whereas the accompanying import application No. 32
related to the consignment marked 'H.N.' The Collector of Land Customs,
Calcutta after hearing the appellant held that offences under s. 5(3) and s.
7(1) of the Land Customs Act, 1924, and s. 167(8) read with of the Sea Customs
Act, 1878 had been committed by the appellant.. He directed confiscation of the
goods under those sections read with s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act, 1947. Departmental remedies having failed the appellant filed a writ
petition in the High Court. Appeal in this Court was filed by the appellant
with certificate. The questions that came up for consideration were inter alia:
(i) whether the seizure and confiscation.
of the goods was authorised by s. 5(3) of the
Land Customs Act, 1924, and (ii) whether the finding that the appellant had
committed offences under that section and other provisions of law was perverse
and liable to be quashed.
HELD: (i) Section 5(3) of the Land Customs
Act. by itself does not require that all imported goods must always at all
times, and at all places be accompanied by a permit. After the permit the goods
become a part and parcel of the mass of other like goods in India. There is no
duty 534 to keep the permit with the consignment for aH times and at all
places. Nor is the importer under a duty to keep the consignment in his hands.
He can sell portions of it to different buyers and obviously he could not give
the permit to every consumer. [540 G--H] Before March 29, 1968 when the Central
Board of Revenue framed the Chinese Silver Dollars (Import) Rules, there was no
provision in the Act or Rules in force which required the appellants to keep
the permits at Sonapur airstrip with the dollars seized on that date. Section
5(3) was not infrinrged when the carriers did not produce the permit concerning
the goods at the Sonapur airstrip on May 18, 1957, and the goods could not be
confiscated under s. 5(3).
[541 C] (ii) Nor were the goods liable to
confiscation under s.
7(1) of the Land Customs Act. There was no
evidence to show that the seized dollars were not covered by licences.
On the materials on record the conclusion was
irresistible that due to the inadvertence of the carriers the permits were
inter changed and that application No. 34 was sent with 'H.N.' consignment and
application No. 32 was kept with 'H.D.' consignment. No inference of smuggling
could be drawn from the fact that 'H.D.' consignment was found with application
No. 32. In the circumstances the finding that the appellant had smuggled the
goods and was guilty of an offence under s. 7(1) of the Land Customs Act must
be characterised as perverse. [541 D--E; 542 B--C] (iii) It was also not proved
that the appellant committed any offence' under ss. 8(1) and 23A of the Foreign
Exchange Regulations Act read with ss. 19 and 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
Although the offence under these sections may be proved by circumstantial
evidence in the present case there was no evidence direct or circumstantial to
prove the offence. [542 D] Issardas Daulat Ram v. Union of India, [1962] Supp.1
S.C.R. 358, referred to.
(iv) Having regard to the facts on the record
no tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the dollars were
liable to confiscation if they properly understood the relevant enactments. In
the circumstances the order of the Collector confiscating the goods was liable
to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. [542 F] Regina v. Medical Appeal
Tribunal, [1957] 1 Q.B. 574, 582, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 1332 of 1966.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated
August 25, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 37-D of 1964.
B. Sen, D.K. Kapur, B.P. Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari,
for the appellant.
R.M. Mehta and S.P. Nayar, for the
respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. The appellant, M/s. Hind Trading Company, imported 1,65,000 pieces
of Chinese Silver Dollars from Yatung in Tibet to Kalmnpong, via Nathula pass
and Rangpo through 535 Sikkim State under two Reserve Bank import licences
dated April 22, 1957. As there were two Reserve Bank licences, the dollars were
divided into two lots at Yatung. Each lot consisted of 66 bags containing 82,500
dollars. One lot of bags bore the mark "H.D." and serial numbers 1 to
66, and the other lot bore the mark "H.N." and srl. nos. 1 to 66.
On May 15, 1957 the appellant made two
applications bearing Nos. 32 and 34 to the officer-in-charge, Land Customs
Station, Kalimpong, for the grant of permits for passing the goods across the
frontier. Application No. 32 related to the bags marked "H.N."
Application No. 34 related to the bags marked "H.D." On May 16, the
two consignments arrived at the land customs station, Kalimpong and were
examined and appraised by the land customs officer-in-charge of the station. On
the duty being paid, the officer endorsed the two applications, certifying that
the duty was paid and permitting the import of the goods. The consignments
loaded in trucks then passed out of the customs house and on the way to
Siliguri were checked at the Teesta Bazar check post at. 8.45 p.m. on May 16.
On the night of May 16, they reached Siliguri and were delivered to M/s.
Amalgamated Transport Co., for carriage by air to Dum Dum. On the morning of
May 17, one consignment of 82,500 dollars packed in 66 bags together with the
import application no. 34 was sent by plane from the Sonapur airstrip to Dum
Dum airport and on the same date the consignment reached Dum Dum and was
delivered to the appellant at Calcutta. On May 18, 1957, the Range Officer,
Matidhar seized the second consignment of 82,500 dollars packed in 66 bags
bearing the mark "H.D." together with the application No. 32, when
they were about to be despatched by air from the sonapur airstrip. The seizure
was made under s. 5 (3) of the Land Customs Act on the Found that the mark on
the bags was "H.D." whereas the accompanying import application No.
32 related to "H.N." bags.
On July 7, 1957, the Collector of Land
Customs, Calcutta, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the
dollars seized on May 18, 1957 should not be confiscated and why a penalty
should not be imposed upon the appellant under ss. 5(3) and 7(1) of the Land
Customs Act, 1924, and section 167(8) read with s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act,
1878 as made applicable by s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
as there was reason to believe that the goods had been imported by the
appellant by land from Tibet into India on May 16, 1957 through Indo-Tibet
border, (i) without a valid permit under s. 5 of the Land Customs Act, and (ii)
without valid permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India under
notification No. F. 3(84) E.F. VII/56 dated May 4, 1956 issued under sec. 8(1)
of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. That notification prohibited' the 536
import into India of silver coins current in the Tibet region of China without
the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. On July 30, 1957 the appellant
showed cause against the proposed action by a letter stating that the first
consignment of 82,500 dollars was packed in bags marked "H.N." that
by inadvertence the carriers M/s.
Amalgamated Transport Co., had sent import
application no.
34 with the first consignment and had kept
application no.
32 with the bags marked "H.D.",
that the two consignments were covered by valid Reserve Bank licences and
import passes, that the seizure of the dollars kept in "H.D." bags
under s. 5 (3) of the Land Customs Act was not justified and that there was no
ground for confiscating the goods or imposing any penalty. The appellant was
heard by the Collector an August 26, and December 11, 1957. On January 10,
1958, the Collector passed an order adjudging that offences under ss. 5(3) and
7(1) of the Land Customs Act and S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 had
been committed and directing confiscation of the goods under those sections
read with s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The Collector held
that (i) the goods were liable to confiscation under s. 5 (3) of the Land
Customs Act as they were not covered by the accompanying import application no.
32; (ii) the appellant failed to prove that the first consignment of 66 bags
bore the mark "H.N." or that by inadvertence of the carriers,
application no. 34 had been sent with it and (iii) had the first consignment of
66 bags borne the mark "H.N." the Range Officer. Matidhar and the
officers at Dum Dum would have detected and rioted this fact and the appellant
could have produced before the customs officials at Calcutta bags with the mark
"H.N." immediately after May 18, 1957. An appeal against this order
was dismissed by the Member, Central Board of Revenue, on May 17, 1958. A
revision petition against the last order was dismissed by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue on January 16,
1961.
On November 16, 1962, the appellant filed a
writ petition in the Punjab High Court for quashing the aforesaid decisions and
for setting aside the order of confiscation of the silver dollars. On May 14,
1964, Shamsher Bahadur, J.
dismissed the petition. He held that there
was no error of law apparent on the face of the record. The appellant filed a
Letters Patent appeal against the order. On August 25, 1964 the Divisional
Bench dismissed the appeal. It held that (1) s. 5 (3) of the Land Customs Act,
1924 applied to the case; (2) the fact that the 66 bags bore the mark
"H.D." and the accompanying application no. 32 related to
"H.N." bags. showed conclusively that the dollars contained in those
bags were imported without proper licence and import permit and without payment
of duty and (3) the finding of fact that there was no mistake on the part of
the carriers with regard to the despatch 537 of the consignments and
accompanying documents could not be set aside in a writ application. If he
present appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining a certificate
from the High Court. .
Mr. B. Sen for the appellant contended that
the seizure and confiscation of the goods was not authorized by s. 5 (3) of the
Land Customs Act, 1924, (2) the finding that the appellant had committed
offences under that section and other provisions of law was perverse and liable
to be quashed; and (3) the impugned orders were passed in contravention of the
principles of natural justice. These contentions were disputed by Mr. R.M.
Mehta.
The Land Customs Act, 1924 provided for the
levy of duties of customs on articles imported or exported by land from or to
territory outside India. The Act extended to the whole of India, (s. 1 ).
Section 2 was the definition section. Section 3 authorised the appointment of
land customs collectors and officers. The Range Officer, Matidhar, was a land
customs officer working under the Collector of Land Customs, Calcutta, having
jurisdiction over Sonapur where the dollars were seized. Section 4 authorised
the establishment of land customs stations and the determination of routes by
which alone goods imported or exported by land could pass. The Central Board of
Revenue established Kalimpong as the land customs station and prescribed the
following routes by which alone dutiable goods could pass out of Tibet into
India: (a) road leading from Yatung (in Tibet) to Kalimpong via Jelapala pass
and pedong through Sikkim State, (b) road leading from Yatung (in Tibet) to
Kalimpong via Nathula pass and Rangpo through the Sikkim State. Section 5
provided for permits.goods passing across frontier. Section 6 dealt with
personal baggage. Section 7 prescribed penalties. Section 8 prescribed certain
dates and times when the goods were not to be passed. Section 9 made applicable
for the purposes of levy of land customs under the Act certain provisions of
the Sea Customs Act, 1878 including s. 167 (8) with necessary modifications and
adaptations. Sections 18, 19 and 19A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and the whole
of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act though not expressly incorporated in the
Land Customs Act applied their own force to goods imported or exported by land.
Duty on imports and exports by land was imposed by s. 5 of the Indian Tariff
Act, 1934.
The Land Customs Act, 1924 had now been
repealed by the Sea Customs Act, 1962.
It is necessary to read sections 4, 5 and
7(1) of the Land Customs Act, 1924 :-- "Section 4.Establishment of Land
Customs Stations and determination of routes--The Chief Customs Authority may,
by notification, in the Official Gazette, 538 (a) establish land customs
stations for the levy of land customs in any land customs area, and (b)
prescribe the routes by which alone goods, or any class of goods specified in
the notification may pass by land out of or into any foreign territory, or to
or from any land customs station from or to any foreign frontier.
Section 5. Permit for goods passing across
frontier (1) Every person desiring to pass any goods, whether dutiable goods or
not, by land out of or into any foreign territory shall apply in writing, in
such form as the Chief Customs Authority may by notification in the Official
Gazette prescribe, for a permit for the passage thereof, to the Land Customs
Officer in-charge of a Land Customs Station established in land customs area
adjoining the foreign frontier across which the goods are to pass.
(2) When the duty on such goods has been paid
or the goods have been found by the Land Customs Officer to be free of duty,
the 'Land Customs Officer shall grant a permit certifying that duty has been
paid on such goods or that the goods are free of duty, as the case may be:
(3) Any Land Customs Officer, duly empowered
by the Chief Customs Authority in this behalf, may require any person in charge
of any goods which such officer has reason to believe to have been imported or
to be about to be imported, by land from, or to any foreign territory to
produce the permit granted for such goods; and any such goods which are
dutiable and which are unaccompanied by a permit or do not correspond with the
specification contained in the permit produced, shall be detained and shall be
liable to confiscation;
Provided that nothing in this sub- section
shall apply to any imported goods passing from a foreign frontier to a Land
Customs Station by a route prescribed in that behalf.
(4) The Chief Customs Authority may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, direct that the provisions of this section,
or any specified provisions thereof, shall not, in any land customs areas
specified in the notification apply in respect of goods of any class or value
or specified.
Section 7. Penalties--(1) Any person who--
(a) in any case in which the permit referred to in section 5 is required,
passes or attempts to pass any 539 goods by land out of or into any foreign
territory through any land customs station without such permit, or (b) conveys
or attempts to convey to or from any foreign territory or to or from any Land
Customs Station any goods by a route other than the route, if any, prescribed
for such passage under this Act, or (c) aids in so passing or conveying any
goods, or knowing that any goods have been so passed or conveyed, keeps or
conceals such goods or permits or procures them to be kept or concealed shah be
liable to penalty not exceeding, where the goods are not dutiable, fifty or,
where the goods or any of them are dutiable, one thousand rupees, and any
dutiable goods in respect of which the offence has been committed shall be
liable to confiscation." The scheme of ss. 4, 5 and 7 (1) of the Land
Customs Act
with regard to imports by land was as follows: Goods could pass by land out of
foreign territory or from a foreign frontier to a land customs station by a
prescribed route only, [s. 4(b)]. To import goods by an unauthorised route or
an attempt to do so was an offence, [s. 7(1)(b)].
No permit could be obtained for importing
goods by an unauthorised route. The goods could be brought by the prescribed
route from the foreign frontier to the land customs station, without a permit
[proviso to s. 5(3)].
Subject to exemptions, if any under s. 5(4),
a permit was required for the passage of goods through the land customs
station. Passing of goods through the land customs station without a permit or
an attempt to so pass the goods was an offence, Is. 7 (1) (a)]. The importer
was required to apply for the permit to the officer-in-charge of the land
customs station, Is. 5(1)]. The goods were brought to the station for
examination and appraisement of duty. On the duty being paid or on its being
found that the goods were free of duty, the officer issued the permit allowing
the passage of the goods and certifying that the duty had been paid or the
goods. were free of duty as the case might be, Is. 5 (1) and (2)]. Dutiable
goods. in respect of which an offence was committed was liable to confiscation.
What is stated above applied mutatis mutandis to exports by land.
In this setting let us examine the provisions
of s.
5(3). That sub-section required that all
goods imported or about to be exported must be accompanied by a permit for the
passage thereof issued by the officer in charge of a land customs station. It
was an offence to take the goods through the land customs station 1. without a
permit. A duly authorised land customs officer could enforce this requirement
by asking any person in charge of the goods to produce the permit. Dutiable
goods unaccompanied by 540 a permit or not corresponding to the specifications
contained in the permit produced had to be detained and was liable to
confiscation. It is to be noticed that the sub- section referred to goods
"unaccompanied by a permit" and to "any person in charge of any
goods." It obviously contemplated cases where the goods should be
accompanied by the permit and the person in charge of the goods was under a
duty to produce the permit. In view of ss. 5 and 7 (1) it was necessary that
the goods should be accompanied by a permit when they passed through the land
customs station.
Rules under the Act could also prescribe that
the goods must be accompanied by a permit for some time even after such
passage. In such cases s. 5 (3) was infringed if the goods were not accompanied
by the permit.
The Central Board of Revenue framed the
Chinese Silver Dollars (import) Rules on March 29, 1958 in exercise of the
powers conferred by s. 9(1) of the Land Customs Act, 1924. Rule 6(2) provided
that on its journey from the Kalimpong laud customs station to its ultimate
destination, any consignment of Chinese silver dollars imported from Tibet into
India must be accompanied by a permit, i.e., the importer's copy of the
relative import application bearing the endorsement of the officer in charge of
the Kalimpong land customs station permitting the clearance of the consignment.
The permit must be produced at the land customs check post at Teesta Bazar,
along with the consignment if the destination was Teesta Bazar or beyond also
be produced on demand by any land customs officer at any time during the
journey of the consignment upto its ultimate destination. These Rules were
framed on the assumption that independently of the Rules, the importer was not
obliged to keep the permit with the dollars after they passed out of the
Kalimpong land customs station. The Rules were not in force on May 18, 1957
when the dollars were seized by the Range Officer, Matidhar. There was no
provision in the Act or the Rules in force on May 18, 1957 which required the
appellant to keep. the permit at Sonapur airstrip with the dollars seized on
that date.
The contention of the Revenue is that s. 5
(3) required that all imported goods .must always, at all times and at all
places be accompanied by a permit. We are unable to accept this contention.'
After the import, the goods became a part and parcel of the mass of other like
goods in 'India.
There was no. duty to keep the permit with
the consignment of imported goods for all times and at all places. Nor was the
importer under a duty to keep the consignment intact in his hands. He could
sell portions of it to different buyers and obviously he could not give the
permit to every consumer. He could import rubies from Burma by land . :and by
sea. It was not necessary to keep any permit with the rubies imported by sea
after their clearance from. the customs 541 house. Nor was the position
different in case of rubies imported by land. A consumer wearing a necklace
made of rubies was not expected to carry the permit for the rubies in her bag.
Under the Land Customs Act a customs clearance permit was necessary for the
passage of goods imported or about to be .exported through the land customs
station. For this reason s. 5(3) read with s. (1)(a) required that the goods so
passing through the land customs station must be accompanied by the permit. The
Rules could provide that the imported goods should be accompanied by the permit
even after such passage. As already stated. the Rules required that imported
Chinese silver dollars should be accompanied by the permit during the entire
journey up to their ultimate destination. In such cases. s. 5(3) was infringed
if the permit covering the goods was not produced on demand by any land customs
officer. Except in such cases, s. 5(3) did not apply, and it was not necessary
to keep the permit with the goods. We hold that s. 5(3) was not infringed when
the carriers did not produce the permit covering the goods at the Sonapur
airstrip on May 18. 1957 and the goods could not be confiscated under s. 5 (3).
Nor were the goods liable to confiscation
under s. 7(1) of the Land Customs Act. The appellant imported 1,65,000 dollars
from Tibet under two Reserve Bank licences and two import permits. There was no
distinguishing mark on any dollar. The appellant was found in possession of
1,65,000 dollars only. No attempt was made to prove that the appellant was in
possession of another consignment of 82,500 dollars. At' the time of import the
dollars were packed in 66 bags marked "H.N." and 66 bags marked
"H.D." The Range Officer seized 82.500 dollars packed in 66 bags
marked "H.D." There is no evidence to. show that the seized dollars
were not covered by the permits and licences held by the appellant. The onus
was on the respondents to prove that the first consignment of 66 bags bore the
mark "H.D." Application no. 34 accompanied the first consignment.
There was no noting on application no. 34 by the customs officer at Sonapur or
at Dum Dum indicating that they had examined the bags or that the bags were
found to bear the mark "H.D." The summary of the diary of the Range
Officer Matidhar set out in the order of confiscation does not show that the
officer examined the bags. The note in the diary that the mark checked was
"H.D." could have been made on the basis of the mark "H.D."
shown in the accompanying application no.
34. Before the issue of the show cause notice
on July 17.
1957 the appellant had no occasion to produce
before the constoms authorities any of the 66 bags marked "H.N."
which had reached Calcutta. No inference has been drawn against the appellant
from their inability to produce any bags marked "H.N." after July 17,
1957. On the materials on. the record it is impossible to hold that the dollars
seized ,on May 18.
4Sup.C. 1./69- 2 542 1957 were smuggled
goods. There was no noting by the customs officers at Sonapur and Dum Dum on
application no.
34. If the appellant desired to send smuggled
"H.D." bags from Sonapur to Dum Dum, they could easily obtain
application no. 34 from Calcutta and send it with the consignment seized at
Sonapur. Moreover, the customs officers had not put any mark or initials on the
bags, and there was nothing to prevent the appellant from putting the mark
"H.N." on other bags and using them for the carriage of the dollars.
The conclusion is irresistible that due to the inadvertence of the carriers the
permits were inter-changed and that application no. 34 was sent with
"H.N." bags and application no. 32 was kept with "H.D."
bags. No inference of smuggling could be drawn from the fact that
"H.D." bags were found with application no. 32. In the circumstances.
the finding that the appellant had smuggled
the goods and was guilty of an offence under s. 7 (1) of the Land Customs Act
must be characterized as perverse.
Nor was it proved that the appellant
committed any offence under ss. 8 (1) and s. 23A of the Foreign Exchange
Regulations Act read with ss. 19 and 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. An offence
under those sections can be proved by circumstantial evidence, see Issardas
Daulat Ram v. Union of India(1). In the present case there was no evidence
either direct or circumstantial to prove the offence. The appellant had valid
Reserve Bank licences for the import of 1,65,000 dollars. Those licences were
not examined nor seized by the customs officials and no attempt was made to
prove. the licences did not relate to the dollars seized on May 1.8, 1957. It
follows that the dollars were not liable to confiscation under any provision of
law.
Having regard to the facts on the record no
tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the dollars were liable
to confiscation if they properly understood the relevant enactments. In the
circumstances the order of the Collector confiscating the goods is liable to be
quashed by a writ of certiorari, see Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed. Vol II,
art. 19, pp. 62-63. In Regina v. Medical Appeal Tribunal(2) the Court held that
an assessment of 20% disablement must, having regard to. the facts appearing on
the record, be held to be erroneous in point of law and based upon a
misconstruction of Regulation 2(5) of the National] Insurance (Industrial
Injuries) (Benefits) Regulation 1948 and the award of the Medical Appeal Tribunal
was therefore liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
Denning, L. 1. observed :- "No
reasonable person. who had proper regard to regulation 2(5), could have come to
such a conclusion.
[1962] supp. 1 S.C.R. 358. (2) [1957] I Q.B.
574, 582.
543 It is now settled that when a tribunal
come to a conclusion which could not reasonably be entertained by them if they
properly understood the relevant enactment, then they fall into error in point
of law: see Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, [1956] A.C.
14: When the primary facts appear on the
record, an error of this kind is sufficiently apparent for it to be regarded as
an or on the face of the record such as to warrant the intervention of this
Court by certiorari." This conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the
appeal.
It is therefore unnecessary to examine the
contention that the impugned orders were passed in contravention of the
principles of natural justice.
In the result, the appeal is allowed with
costs. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition
filed by the appellant is allowed. The order of confiscation of the Chinese
silver dollars is quashed and the respondents are directed to return them to
the appellant.
G.C. Appeal allowed.
Back