P L D 1969 Dacca 691 (PLP)

????? Chittagong, ??????? 6-11‑65." ?(The underlining" is ours). It is evident from the show‑cause notice justice quoted that the petitioner was fully apprised of the allegations against him and he was asked to show cause within ten days of the date of the issue of the notice, that is, 6‑11‑

65. Admittedly the petitioner received the notice on 8‑11‑65 and he put in his explanation on the very next day, that is, on 9‑11‑

65. It is also evident from the show?-cause notice that the petitioner was particularly asked to state whether he wished to be heard in person. In pursuance of this notice the petitioner submitted his explanation on 9‑I 1‑

65. The explanation is as follows: ‑ PAK EXPORTERS & IMPORTERS HARDWARE, GENERAL MERCHANTS, ORDER SUPPLIERS P. O. Box No.

352. Chittagong. East Pakistan. 312/E, Live Lane.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Dated 9th November 1965. ??????????? ?? Ref. No. 19/65. The Collector of Customs, Customs House, Chittagong. Subject :‑303 C/s. Brass Screws Ex. s.s. GANGES MARU Rot. 534/65/L/No.

87. Sir, With reference to your Memo. No. 165/AP/GR/3D/65‑66/9919?Cus. dated 8‑11‑65, we beg to state that this consignment has been imported against the L/C. No. 6229 dated 24‑5‑65, a perusal of which would show that Brass Screws were to be imported whereas as per examination report as indicated in the memo. that partial consignment is made up of Brass Screws and the rest Galvd. Iron roofing screws. It will be seen from the above that we have not deliberately misdeclared the goods as such we request you to kindly take a linient view of the matter and for this act of kindness your humble petitioner shall ever pray. Thanking you. Yours faithfully." It is, therefore, abundantly clear that although the petitioner was given a full opportunity to defend himself and although he was asked to state whether he would like to appear personally or through a representative, the petitioner neither asked for a personal hearing nor for time to adduce evidence or supplement his defence. The petitioner's only defence was that the letter of credit as well as the invoice and the bill of lading showed that the petitioner imported brass screws and therefore, there was no deliberate misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in drawing up the aforesaid declaration form for clearance of the said consignment. It is indeed significant that the petitioner never produced before any one of the authorities, the aforesaid indent to show that was actually the order that was placed by the petitioner with the aforesaid Liberty Trading Company Limited of Japan. The petitioner did not even produce the document before this Court. The petitioner not having cared for a personal hearing before respondent No. 1, the Collector of Customs, and having indicated no desire‑to be present personally before the appellate authority, the disposal of the appeal on the basis of the records of the case is neither illegal nor improper. So far as the rejection of the petitioner's revisional application is concerned the matter was within the discretion of the authority, and no further opportunity to the petitioner was necessary. Mr. Kamal Hossain in support of his contention has cited before us two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of the Federation of Pakistan v. Sardar Ali (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 25) and Chief Commis?sioner Karachi v. Dina Sohrab Katrak (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 45). As regards the first case reported at page 25, the offence was one under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and the delinquent was not given any opportunity of personal hearing at all. The second case reported at p. 45 was a case under Sind (Requisition of Land) Act (XLVI of 1947), and the aggrieved person was not given any opportunity to be heard on his appeal. It may be noted however, that the first time that the aggrieved person had an opportunity to object to the requisition in question was at the appellate stage and not earlier. It will thus be noticed that, the facts of these two cases are altogether different from the one that is before us. In the case before us as noticed already, although the petitioner was specifically asked to say whether he wished to be heard in person or through a pleader the petitioner chose to remain silent and failed to ask for either. Furthermore at no point of time the petitioner expressed any desire to be heard personally or through his representative, we, therefore, do not think there has been any contravention of the principles of natural Justice. Mr. Kamal Hossain has next contended that the imposition of personal penalty under section 167(9‑B) of the Sea Customs Act is illegal for two reasons. Firstly, no indication of the charge under section 167 (9‑B) of the Sea Customs Act was given to the petitioner in the aforesaid show‑cause notice and there is no finding that the petitioner had deliberately made any false statement. Secondly, the respondents have not disclosed any basis for the extent of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Section 167(9‑B) is as follows: ‑ "If, in relation to any goods, an offence is committed under section 39, the goods in question shall be liable to confiscation, and every person concerned in any such offence shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand rupees or three time the value of such goods, whichever is the greater." The aforesaid show‑cause notice Annexure `C' to the petition has clearly stated; "you have also deliberately misdeclared the goods as Brass Screws to evade I. T. C. restriction". It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner was told that he had made certain false statements in the aforesaid declaration drawn up by him in connection with a matter of customs. The impugned order dated 2‑12‑65 of respondent No. 1, the Collector of Customs, ordering confiscation of the goods of the petitioner clearly contained the requisite finding in the following terms: ?"I am convinced that the party has deliberately misdeclared the consignment." As regards the amount of penalty imposed on the petitioner, namely, Rs. 10,000 it may have been noticed that in the aforesaid show‑cause notice it has been stated : "roofing Screws as Brass Screws" valued Rs. 27,027.59 (C and F)". The valuation does not appear to have been seriously challenged by the petitioner. Furthermore the petitioner has not given his estimate of the value of the aforesaid iron roofing screws. Besides the personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 is obviously well within the limit prescribed under section 167 (9‑B) of the Sea Customs Act, namely, not exceeding three times the value of the goods in question, we, therefore, do not think there is any sub, stance in this contention. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs which we assess at five Gold Mohurs. ABDUL MOUDUD.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule discharged.