AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Pratap, J.—The Deputy Collector of Customs has, after inspection of the goods and after hearing the petitioners, made his order on 5th January 1988 with reasons in support thereof. He has also indicated the result of the second check examination and the Docks examination report, which latter report clearly states that the goods are not completely premeditated as declared and the goods are serviceable garments after being economically rest itched. In fact some pants have even departmental price tags on them intact. For the reasons stated in his order, the Deputy Collector of Customs has confiscated the goods u/s 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but has given to the importers an option to clear the same after further mutilation so as to render the goods into several pieces and to be completely mutilated. Penalty has also been imposed u/s 112 of the Act with the observation that had the condition of the garments not been detected due to percentage examination, the importer would have succeeded in clearing the goods by misdeclaration.
Perusal of the above order makes it obvious that it is based on examination and inspection of the goods and that questions arising are questions of fact not amenable to appropriate adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Besides, the petitioners have not without remedy. Indeed, they have statutory right of appeal under the Act in question.
This petition thus fails and the same is dismissed.