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

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

The confiscation order was lawful under s. 167, item 8, Sea Customs Act, 1878, as read with section 3(2) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and did not require that an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation be given. The statutory provisions invoked do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution either by their terms or by reason of conferral of discretion, and procedural fairness was observed.

Parties
Petitioner: F. N. Roy; Respondent: Collector of Customs, Calcutta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 May 1957
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 14 of the Constitution, Sea Customs Import Without Licence, Confiscation of Goods, Discretion of Customs Authorities, Validity of Enactment, Application of Imports and Exports (control) Act, 1947, Penalty and Due Process
Constitutional Law Customs Law Administrative Law Article 14 of the Constitution Sea Customs Import Without Licence Confiscation of Goods Discretion of Customs Authorities Validity of Enactment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. N. Roy

Petitioner

Collector of Customs, Calcutta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Final Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, as it applies section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 with modification, offends Article 14 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as modified, or section 167, item 8, offends Article 14 of the Constitution due to conferral of discretion
  3. 3 Whether not giving the option of fine in lieu of confiscation invalidates confiscation order

Ratio Decidendi

The confiscation order was lawful under s. 167, item 8, Sea Customs Act, 1878, as read with section 3(2) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and did not require that an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation be given. The statutory provisions invoked do not offend Article 14 of the Constitution either by their terms or by reason of conferral of discretion, and procedural fairness was observed.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition is dismissed with costs.