Judgment :- This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on Monday 1-7-1963 upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 24-3-1961 and made herein, and the Counter affidavit and reply affidavits filed herein and the records in O.S. 640 of 1960 R.D. relating to the order dated 24-10-1960 on the file of the Collector of Customs, Madras and comprised in the return of the Respondent to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. Govindarajulu, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Mohan, Advocate for Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following order: 2.This is a petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras, on the ground that the principles of natural justice have been violated and that finding that the petitioner is a person concerned in the offence of illegal import within the meaning of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act has been reached on the basis of no evidence whatsoever and accordingly the order impugned is also vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. 3.The enquiry conducted by the Collector of Customs was directed not only against this petitioner but against several others as well. An examination of the baggages of certain passengers who arrived at the Madras Port on 2-4-1960 by ss. Rajula revealed that they contained a quantity of luxury and trade goods. It also appears that some officers of the Customs as well as the ministries employed by Messrs. Binny and Company, Steamer Agents, were involved in passing the goods without proper check. But in so far as that part of the proceeding is concerned, it took a different course with which we are not concerned. Some of the baggages cleared by the passengers were kept at certain places which were searched by the Customs Officers. A steel trunk which had been cleared on 2-4-1960 by a passenger Shri Subbayyan was found to contain contraband goods. Other passengers, Nagarajan, Arusappan and Ramaswami had also cleared baggages which contained goods the free import of which was prohibited. Some of the baggages cleared by the passengers were kept at certain places which were searched by the Customs Officers. A steel trunk which had been cleared on 2-4-1960 by a passenger Shri Subbayyan was found to contain contraband goods. Other passengers, Nagarajan, Arusappan and Ramaswami had also cleared baggages which contained goods the free import of which was prohibited. The order of the Collector purports to say that it was "gathered" that these goods brought by six passengers were intended for one Ponmadurai Pandian in whose house the passengers kept the baggages that they had cleared. The order further states that "further investigation conducted in this connection revealed" that this Ponmadurai was regularly getting luxury and trade goods from one Ponnalagu of Singapore and that "It was also gathered that the said Ponnalagu had sent this consignment through the aforesaid six passengers." * Two airmail letters were seized from Ponmadurai Pandian which the order states confirmed the above conclusion of the Department. 4.Certain statement appear to have been recorded from the passengers but none from the petitioner Ponnalagu. It may be stated here that while the seizures were affected on 2nd and 3rd of April, 1960, Ponnalagu came from Singapore to India on the 7th of April, 1960. He was detained at the Meenambakkam airport and the order states that "when interrogated, Sri Ponnalagu admitted that he sent the aforesaid goods to Shri Ponmadurai Pandian through Shri Nagarajan and others" * . This alleged admission of Ponnalagu forms part of the basis of the charge against Ponnalagu and the findings against him. 5.To a notice issued to him the petitioner replied that he had no connection with the passengers, nor with the goods, nor with in documents, that is, the airmail letters, said to have been seized from Ponmadurai Pandian. During the course of the enquiry also, he denied having made any admissions before the Customs Officers. A similar stand was taken by all the passengers, who alleged that they signed some statements, but they did not know what was contained those statements. It was also urged at the time of the enquiry before the Collector that there was material to show that these persons including the petitioner were detained in Customs' custody for a considerable length of time so that their statements, whatever effect they might have as against Ponnalagu, could not be said to be voluntary. It was also urged at the time of the enquiry before the Collector that there was material to show that these persons including the petitioner were detained in Customs' custody for a considerable length of time so that their statements, whatever effect they might have as against Ponnalagu, could not be said to be voluntary. It was also pointed out that Ponnalagu who is not a citizen of India came to India only on the 7th April, 1960, and nothing whatever had been established to show his connection with the illicit import of the goods. In the concluding part of the Collector's order, it is stated : "So far as the sender Shri Ponnalagu is concerned, in his oral statement made by him before the departmental officers, he admitted everything but he did not give any written statement. The counsels denied this verbal admission. But here also the background of the case and the developments have to be kept in view. The documentary evidence connecting the sender with the goods cannot be ignored. His complicity in the illegal importation has been established beyond doubt." * 6.The above extract virtually comprises the entirety of the evidence against Ponnalagu. What this evidence is which is claimed to lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was concerned in the illegal importation has to be examined, for, it is the contention of the petitioner that apart from bald statements of this type, the enquiring authority has not so much as stated what the evidence consists of, how that evidence was brought on record and how it supports the finding reached. 7.I may first refer to the alleged admissions made by Ponnalagu. He is said to have admitted "everything" but refused to give a written statement. It is unfortunate that the Customs Collector has not cared to make part of the order what admissions were in fact made by the petitioner. The order is silent as to the person to whom the admissions were made, and no contemporaneous record of the admissions was ever prepared by any official of the Customs Department before whom the admissions are said to have been made. No Customs Officer was examined to speak to the admissions at any stage whatsoever. The order is silent as to the person to whom the admissions were made, and no contemporaneous record of the admissions was ever prepared by any official of the Customs Department before whom the admissions are said to have been made. No Customs Officer was examined to speak to the admissions at any stage whatsoever. Can the mere statement of the Customs Collector which says that some admissions were made by the petitioner to some unspecified officer of the Department in terms which are nowhere set out in the order be taken to be evidence as it is understood even in a quasi-judicial enquiry. One would have thought that when a person is to be convicted as it were on his admission, the purport of the admission would be made clear, the person to whom the admission were made would be examined in support of that allegation and the petitioner would be given an opportunity of knowing those facts which formed the substance of the case against him. There is not the slightest doubt that the petitioner had no such opportunity. Apparently, from reports of Departmental Officers which formed part of the record, the Customs Collector gathered that some admissions had been made. It is important to notice that whatever record gave the enquiring officer this information, that was not disclosed to the petitioner. There is no explanation whatsoever and the learned Addl. Government Pleader has not been able to advance any explanation as to why the alleged confession was not brought on record in a proper manner as evidence against the petitioner. It is abundantly clear that the petitioner was not even made aware of the bundle of facts which formed the entirety of the evidence against him and the opportunity given to him to show cause is an opportunity only in name. I am firmly of the opinion that the principles of natural justice which have been repeatedly emphasised by several decisions of this Court particularly in customs cases have been thrown overboard. 8.The next item is the so-called documentary evidence connecting the sender, the petitioner, with the goods. This documentary evidence consists of a couple of airmail letters addressed to Ponmadurai Pandian. They were seized from his residence. The authorship of these letters is denied by the petitioner and the letters themselves do not ex facie show that the petitioner wrote them. 8.The next item is the so-called documentary evidence connecting the sender, the petitioner, with the goods. This documentary evidence consists of a couple of airmail letters addressed to Ponmadurai Pandian. They were seized from his residence. The authorship of these letters is denied by the petitioner and the letters themselves do not ex facie show that the petitioner wrote them. Upon what evidence the Collector of Customs came to the conclusion that the petitioner wrote these letters or what the contents of the letters were which indicated complicity of the petitioner in this illicit import, is not indicated at all in the order. Repeated emphasis has been laid by the Collector on the fact that the Department had information, that the Departmental officers worked on that information, that something was gathered in such and such a manner and that a search revealed that the baggage of these passengers contained contraband goods. Apparently, some statement had been recorded from Ponmadurai Pandian from whose custody the letters were seized. But the order does not say what the explanation of Ponmadurai Pandian was in regard to these letters and how that explanation implicated the petitioner. The details of the statement said to have been recorded from Ponmadurai Pandian are not referred to in the body of the order, nor does the Collector say in his order that his statement of Ponmadurai Pandian was brought to the notice of the petitioner and that he was asked to controvert the evidence afforded by that statement and the letters. During the course of the hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader produced these letters before me. He was not able to point out to any passages in those letters which indicated that the author of the letters was the petitioner Ponnalagu. Apparently for the reason that Ponnalagu was given no opportunity of challenging any statement made by Ponmadurai Pandian (it may here be stated that Ponmadurai claimed that the statement was extracted from him under duress), the learned Addl. Government Pleader did not rely upon the statement in the course of the arguments before me. In these circumstances, it passes my comprehension how anything can be spelt out of those letters which would indicate me complicity of Ponnalagu in the illicit import in question. Government Pleader did not rely upon the statement in the course of the arguments before me. In these circumstances, it passes my comprehension how anything can be spelt out of those letters which would indicate me complicity of Ponnalagu in the illicit import in question. As matters stand, therefore, these letters prove nothing in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and the mere statement of the Collector of Customs that these documents afforded testimony cannot in the circumstances stand a moment's scrutiny.9.Admittedly, the Customs Officials have a difficult task to perform. One can sympathise with their efforts to counteract the ingenuity of persons illicity importing goods. It may also be that from a variety of reasons, the Customs Authorities may justifiable draw the inference that a particular person is involved, and for all that we know such an inference may well be founded in fact. But where the matter has to be adjudicated upon, whether by a regular court or by a quasi-judicial Tribunal armed with such large powers as the Customs Department has, it is imperative that the inference drawn by the Department should be supported by material and that the person proceeded against is given a reasonable opportunity of meeting that evidence. For the Collector to say that having regard to the background of the case, these pieces of evidence were sufficient in his opinion to reach the conclusion that Ponnalagu was involved is not in conformity with what the law requires. The inference that he reaches must be based upon evidences and that evidence must be permitted to be tested by the person proceeded against. In the present case, I must observe with regret that the Customs Collector in his understandable anxiety to discover the persons responsible for the illicit import has ignored the fundamental requirements and permitted his suspicions to take the place of proof. 10.In the light of these vitiating features the orders has to be and is hereby quashed.