This is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, where­in the petitioner prays that the orders pass­ed by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong on the 14th Febru­ary, 1962, imposing a fine of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner, the Central Board of Reve­nue, New Delhi dated 29th June, 1962 and the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance dated 28th November, 1962, being illegal, ultra-vires, unconstitu­tional and void ab initio should be set aside, and a writ of certiorari or mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to give effect to the said orders and to exempt the petitioner from the liability of paying the fine, imposed upon him. (2) The facts which have given rise to this writ petition are that on 30-7-61 at he was not at all acquainted with Shri Dinabandhu Dhar. Shri Dinabandhu Dhar did not reply to his show cause memo. He however, submitted a petition dated 21-9-61 to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Silchar to the effect that he did not know Shri Dinesh Dey and that his statement at the time of seizure was ex­torted by the Deputy Superintendent (Pre­ventive) Agartala I Circle. 9-30 p.m., the Customs staff of Agartala I Circle intercepted the jeep No. TRT. 20 at Arundhatinagar Drop Gate while it was pro­ceeding to Agartala and on search recover­ed 1226 tolas of silver lumps, 599 tolas 12 as, of obsolete silver coins, valued at Rupees 3734.80 nP. from the person of Dinabandhu Dhar, son of Shri Girish Ch. Dhar of village Charakbai, P. O. Nowgong, Tripura. Shri Dinabandhu Dhar, when interrogated, re­plied that the actual owner of the goods was Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey of Belonia who imported them from foreign territory and gave the same to him for transport from Belonia to Agartala where the goods were to be collected by Shri Dey or his agent in the following morning. He fur­ther stated that for this transport he was paid Rs. 30 by Shri Dey. Shri Rabindra Singh, the driver of the jeep No. TRT-20, who was also apprehended, stated that he was coming from Udaipur with the jeep on 30-7-61 carrying passengers in his jeep. Shri Dinabandhu Dhar, when asked to pro­duce valid document for legal importation of the goods, failed to produce it, therefore, these goods were seized along with the jeep. Shri Rabindra Singh, the driver of the jeep No. TRT-20, who was also apprehended, stated that he was coming from Udaipur with the jeep on 30-7-61 carrying passengers in his jeep. Shri Dinabandhu Dhar, when asked to pro­duce valid document for legal importation of the goods, failed to produce it, therefore, these goods were seized along with the jeep. Thereafter, on 10-8-61, the Superinten­dent of Central Excise and Land Customs, Agartala I Circle issued show cause notices to Sarbashri Dinabandhu Dhar, Dinesh Ch. Dey, Rabindra Singh and Nityananda Roy, owner of the jeep asking them to show cause why the goods and the vehicle should not be confiscated under Ss. 5(3) and 7(1) of the Land Customs Act, 1924 and S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 read with S. 19 as made applicable by S. 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and S. 168 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and why penalty should not be imposed on them under the aforesaid provisions of law. Sarbashri Dinabandhu Dhar and Dinesh Chandra Dey were also given opportunity, under S. 23(3) of the Foreign Exchange Re­gulation Act, 1947, of producing any autho­rity or general or special permission, issued by the Reserve Bank of India authorising them to import the goods. In reply to show cause notice, Shri Himanshu Ranj an Roy, acting on behalf of Shri Nityananda Roy, through a power-of-attorney, stated in his reply dated 16-8-61 that the goods under seizure were recovered from the person of Shri Dinabandhu Dhar, who was not known to him or to his driver. He had also no knowledge of any contraband goods being carried by Shri Dinabandhu Dhar. He prayed to be exonerated from the charges brought against him. (3) Shri Rabindra Singh in his reply, dated 17-8-61, pleaded his ignorance and stated that he did not know from before­hand that the passenger was carrying con­traband goods. He also prayed to be ex­onerated from the charges. Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey in his reply denied the owner­ship of the goods and stated inter alia that In the course of investigation, the house of Shri Dinabandhu Dhar was searched by the Preventive Officer, Belonia on 22-8-61. He also prayed to be ex­onerated from the charges. Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey in his reply denied the owner­ship of the goods and stated inter alia that In the course of investigation, the house of Shri Dinabandhu Dhar was searched by the Preventive Officer, Belonia on 22-8-61. In the absence of Dinabandhu Dhar the search was attended by his father, Shri Girish Chandra Banik, who, in his statement dated 22-8-61, subscribed in presence of in­dependent witnesses stated inter alia that the goods seized from his son belonged to him and the same were brought by him from Pakistan and he had sent them through his; son for sale at Agartala. He also revealed that the actual name of his son was Dinesh Chandra Banik and not Dinabandhu Dhar. He, however, stated that his son is also be­ing called as 'Dinabandhu' by people and the use of the title Dhar or Banik was ac­cording to his son's wish. (4) When the actual name of Shri Dina-, bandhu Dhar was known to be Shri Dinesh Chandra Banik, and since Shri Girish Chan­dra Banik put forward his claim on the seized goods, fresh show cause notices were issued by the Collector on 27-10-61, to SW-bashri Girish Chandra Banik, Dinesh'Chan­dra Banik, Dinesh Chandra Dey, Nitya­nanda Roy and Rabindra Singh. Sarbashri Girish Chandra Banik, Dinesh Chandra Banik and Dinesh Chandra Dey were also given opportunity under S. 23(3) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to produce any au­thority or general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India for import of the seized goods. In the course of subsequent enquiry, Shri Dinesh Chandra. Banik subscribed, in a written statement on 3-11-61, that the state­ment subscribed by him in his own hand­writing voluntarily at the time of seizure on 30-7-61 was true, and the actual owner of the goods seized was Shri Dinesh.Chan­dra Dey of Belonia. He further stated that his Pleader took his signature on some blank paper and he did not know what reply was given on his behalf. He also revealed that his real name was Shri Dinesh Chandral Banik, but his parents also called him Dina­bandhu. Generally, Baniks used the title Dhar and that was the reason why he sign­ed as Dinabandhu Dhar. He also revealed that his real name was Shri Dinesh Chandral Banik, but his parents also called him Dina­bandhu. Generally, Baniks used the title Dhar and that was the reason why he sign­ed as Dinabandhu Dhar. Girish Chandra Banik, also subscribed a statement on 3-11-61, in course of the enquiry, stating that his earlier statement dated 22-8-61 was con­trary to facts and was given at the instance of Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey of Belonia .who was the actual owner of the seized goods and that his son Dinesh Chandra Banik only acted as a carrier of the goods. In response to the show cause notice issued on 27-10-61, Shri Dinesh Chandra Banik stated in reply dated 11-11-61 that the seized goods belonged to Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey of Belonia who arranged to send the goods through him from Belonia to Agartala for a remuneration of Rs. 30. He did not know from where these goods were received nor did he know the purpose for which the same were being sent to Agartala. He also did not know that it was illegal for him to carry those goods. He further stated that his actual name was Shri Dinesh Chandra Banik, but his parents called him by the name Dinabandhu also. Shri Girish Chandra Banik in his reply dated 11-11-61 stated that the actual owner of the seized goods was Dinesh Chandra Dey of Belonia. He also stated that his earlier statement to the Investigating Officer de­claring himself to be the owner of the goods was not true and the same was subscribed by him under the influence of Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey, who asked him to make such a statement so that his son could be saved and the goods would be handed over to him. Shri Himanshu Rani an Roy, holding power-of-attorney, on behalf of Shri Nitya-nanda Roy, the owner of the vehicle No. TRT- 20, stated that his driver did not con­nive in the act of illegal removal of the seiz­ed: Roods. Shri Rabindra Singh, the driver of the vehicle did not submit any reply to the show cause notice issued to him on 3-11-61. Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey, owner of the seized goods also did not submit any reply to the show cause notice issued to him on 3-11-61. Shri Rabindra Singh, the driver of the vehicle did not submit any reply to the show cause notice issued to him on 3-11-61. Shri Dinesh Chandra Dey, owner of the seized goods also did not submit any reply to the show cause notice issued to him on 3-11-61. Thereafter, the Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, by his order dated 14th February, 1962 ordered for the confiscation of the seized silver lumps and coins under S. 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 23A of the Foreign Ex­change Regulation Act, 1947. He also im­posed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 500 on Dinesh Chandra Dey and Dinesh Chandra Banik respectively as persons concerned, under S. 167(8). He, by this order released the vehicle of Rabindra Singh, driver. (5) Being aggrieved by this order of the Collector Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi on the 15th March, 1962. The Central Board of Revenue by a letter dated 9th April, 1962 directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty imposed upon him as a condition ' precedent for entertaining the said appeal. The petitioner did not deposit the amount, therefore, the appeal was dismissed sum­marily by Shri B. N. Banerjee, a member of the Central Board of Revenue on 29th June, 1962. Being aggrieved with the order of the Central Board of Revenue dated 29th June, 1962 the petitioner filed a revision petition on 25th July, 1962 to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. On this revision petition the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,000, the amount of penalty imposed upon him. The peti­tioner did not comply with this order and hence the revision petition was dismissed. Thereafter, a notice was served upon the petitioner by the S. D. C. of Belonia under the provisions of S. 62 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 for the recovery of the said penalty of Rs. 5,000. Being aggrieved with this action of the Ex­cise Department and the S. D. C. the peti­tioner has filed this writ petition with the contention that the orders of the respondents are illegal and hence they should be set aside. 5,000. Being aggrieved with this action of the Ex­cise Department and the S. D. C. the peti­tioner has filed this writ petition with the contention that the orders of the respondents are illegal and hence they should be set aside. (6) On behalf of the respondents the re­ply was filed on 31st July, 1964 denying all the allegations of the petitioner. (7) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Ad­vocate and perused the record of the case. (8) The learned counsel for the peti­tioner contended that on 10-8-61, the Sup­erintendent of Central Excise and Land Cus­toms, Agartala I Circle , issued the show cause notice upon the petitioner and others. Thereafter again on 27-10-61 issued a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and others without any reason. The issue of the second show cause notice was against the principles of natural justice, and hence it amounts to an error of law and facts ap­parent on the face of the record, therefore, these orders should be set aside. There is no substance in this contention. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show me as to how the issue of second show cause notice was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. There is nothing in the Sea Customs Act which bars the issue of a second show cause notice. A second show cause notice can be issued if the facts of the case do need it. In this case the actual name of Shri Dinabandhu Dhar as Dinesh Chandra Banik was revealed during the enquiry, and, there­fore, it became necessary to issue a fresh notice to that person. Besides, Shri Girish Chandra Banik put forward his claim on the seized goods, therefore, it becomes' all the more necessary to issue a fresh notice, and hence the second show cause notice was issued. In this second show cause notice, all the facts were mentioned but the peti­tioner did not submit any reply. In view of these facts the issue of second show cause notice does not amount to an error of law or fact, apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extraordinary jurisdiction. In view of these facts the issue of second show cause notice does not amount to an error of law or fact, apparent on the face of the record. Moreover, mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extraordinary jurisdiction. (9) The learned counsel for the petitioner next averred that in this case the penalty the process of importation, assuming the im­portation is unlawful, is completed and in--dependency of the series of acts connected with such importation will not fall within the terms of item 8 of the schedule. Mere possession of gold which has been unlawfully imported into India cannot be dealt with-under Item 8 of the Schedule to S. 167. He also cited the following two other rulings on this point. AIR 1960 Bom 478 and AIR I960 Cal 676. The Principle laid down in these two rulings is the same as pointed out above in the case reported in AIR 1960 Mad 281 as imposed upon the petitioner after taking evidence of some witnesses behind his back and without giving any opportunity of cross-examining them, therefore, the enquiry must be held to have been conducted in a lanner violative of all principles of natural justice, and hence the order passed on the as is of such enquiry must be held to be legal, arbitrary and ultra vires. This connection is without any force. In this case, be petitioner was asked by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Shillong side show cause notice dated 27-10-61 to re­ly against the charges framed in the show cause notice either personally or through his legal representative, but he did not reply to his show cause notice. He was also supplied with the statements of witnesses but he lid not ask for any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, therefore, the question of denying opportunity to the petitioner o, cross-examine the witnesses does not arise. (10) It was further contended that the hiding of the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, to the effect that the petitioner is a person concerned in the offence alleged to have been committed under 3. 167(8) of Sea Customs Act, is illegal and in warranted because there is no evidence worth the name to prove that the petitioner lad any connection whatsoever with the goods in question. 167(8) of Sea Customs Act, is illegal and in warranted because there is no evidence worth the name to prove that the petitioner lad any connection whatsoever with the goods in question. It was further alleged ;hat there is no sufficient evidence to prove hat the goods in question were imported from any foreign country or they were im­ported by the petitioner, therefore, the penalty imposed upon him is illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also pointed out that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to prove the actual time when the alleged importation of said goods took place, and as the goods were seized long after the com­pletion of the alleged offence of the impor­tation of the said goods, therefore, the pen­alty imposed upon the petitioner is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional and should not be allowed to stand. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case Devichand Jestimall and Co., Bangalore v. Collector of Central Ex­cise, Madras, AIR 1960 Mad 281 . In this case Balakrishna Aiyar, J. while delivering the judgment observed that to bring the peti­tioners within the terms of item 8 of S. 167 It is necessary to establish either that they actually imported the gold or were concern­ed in the import of gold. It must be shown that they had arranged for the import of the gold or abetted the import of the gold or received it immediately after the Import, the receipt being the final step in the process of importation. In other words, they must have either actually committed the offence of importation or have been ac­cessories to it either before the fact or after the fact. To be in possession of the gold, or to sell the gold, or to buy the gold, once (11) The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that he has not dispute regarding the principle laid down, in these rulings, but the facts of these case. are different and hence these rulings are not applicable in this case. He further aver­red that in this case there is overwhelming, evidence showing that they were concerned in the import of these articles. are different and hence these rulings are not applicable in this case. He further aver­red that in this case there is overwhelming, evidence showing that they were concerned in the import of these articles. In support-of his contention he pointed out the Annexures A, statement of Dinabandhu Dhar, dated 30-7-61, "B" statement of Gins!*' Chandra Banik dated 3-11-61, "D" the en­quiry report by Officer in charge, C. P. F.», "F" the reply to the show cause notice sub­mitted by Dinesh Chandra Roy dated 11-11-61, "G" statement of Girish Chandra " dated 11-11-61 and "H" statement dated 11-61 given by the villagers to the I. O. He-further pointed out that in view of the find­ings of fact arrived at by the Collector that the petitioner is the actual importer of these-goods from Pakistan, this Court should not interfere in this finding. He next contended that the Collector arrived to this finding after taking into consideration the evidence on the record, therefore, even if there is any error in the appre­ciation of the evidence this Court has no-right to interfere with this finding. The learned lawyer also averred that in view of the finding of the learned Collec­tor marked as Annexure "C" this Court should take that the petitioner was the per­son who imported these goods to India. In support of his argument he placed reliance on the case reported in AIR 1958 SC 398 . In this case Sinha J. while deciding this case observed that one of the grounds on which-the jurisdiction of the High Court on certiorari may be invoked is an error of law apparent on the face of the record and not every error either of law or fact, which can. be corrected by a superior Court, in exercise of its statutory powers as a Court of appeal or revision. In this respect the law in India and the law in England are the same. The Common law writ now called the order of certiorari, which has also been adopted by our Consti­tution, is not meant to take the place of an appeal where the Statute does not confer a right of appeal. Its purpose is only to de­termine, on an examination of the record, whether the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in ac­cordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was meant to administer. Its purpose is only to de­termine, on an examination of the record, whether the inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not proceeded in ac­cordance with the essential requirements of the law which it was meant to administer. Mere formal or technical errors, even though of law, will not be sufficient to attract this extraordinary jurisdiction. Where the errors cannot be said to be errors of law apparent on the face of the record, but they are mere­ly errors in appreciation of documentary evi­dence or affidavits, errors in drawing infer­ences or omission to draw inference or in other words errors which a Court sitting as a Court of appeal only, could have examin­ed and, if necessary, corrected and the ap­pellate authority under the statute in ques­tion has unlimited jurisdiction to examine and appreciate the evidence in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction and it has not been shown that in exercising its powers the appellate authority disregarded any mandatory provisions of the law but what Can be said at the most was that it had disregarded certain executive instruc­tions not having the force of law, there is no case for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226. The non-observance of the executive instructions cannot affect the power of the appellate authority and render its order invalid. It is not for the High Court or Supreme Court to examine the order in any detail. Where an Act has creat­ed its own hierarchy of officers and appel­late authorities to administer the law the High Court has no concern with the manner in which those powers have been exercised so long as those authorities have functioned within the letter. (12) After having given my post anxi­ous consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned lawyers, I find that the con­tention of the learned Government Advocate carries weight. In this case in view of the statements of Dinabandhu Dhar, Girish Chandra Banik and the findings of fact ar­rived at by the Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, it is clear that the peti­tioner was the person who imported these articles to India from Pakistan. If there had been no such evidence in that case the 3 rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have helped him. If there had been no such evidence in that case the 3 rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would have helped him. In this case in view of the evidence on the record as pointed out above, I find that the con­tention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. (13) The learned counsel for the peti­tioner contended that the order passed by the Central Board of Revenue on 29th June, IL962, rejecting the appeal of the petitioners, simply on the ground that he failed to de-.posit the amount of fine is illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires. In order to substantiate this contention he averred that when the peti­tioner denied his ownership of these articles In that case the board had no right to ask the petitioner to deposit the amount of pen­alty imposed upon him. There is no merit in this contention. From the record it is clear that* the peti­tioner Dinesh Chandra Dey was held the owner of the Goods, therefore, the direc­tion of the Central Board of Revenue given to the petitioner for depositing the penalty imposed upon him cannot be called illegal or arbitrary. In this case this order was issued in pursuance of S. 189 of the Sea Customs Act. The provisions of this section are mandatory and any one not abiding by these instructions will forfeit his right of appeal. In this case the petitioner did not abide the instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue, therefore, the appeal was rightly rejected. In support of it, I may, cite the case reported in AIR 1958 Bom 305 . In this case K. T. Desai J. while deciding the case observed that the effect of the provi­sions of S. 189 is that before a person can appeal against a decision of a Customs Offi­cer he has to deposit in the hands of the Customs Collector the amount of duty or, penalty adjudged against him. These provi­sions are intended to obviate the necessity of any proceedings by way of attachment and sale for the realisation of any amount ordered to be paid by the appellate authori­ty. These provi­sions are intended to obviate the necessity of any proceedings by way of attachment and sale for the realisation of any amount ordered to be paid by the appellate authori­ty. (14) The learned Government Advocate contended that the petitioner failed to exhaust the remedial action as envisaged in sec­tions 188 and 191 of the Sea Customs Act, by not effectively pursuing his appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, by depositing the penalty of Rs. 5,000 as de­manded of him, therefore, he is now debarred from praying for this writ. (15) The learned counsel for the peti­tioner failed to rebut this contention. (16) According to S. 189, the petitioner should have deposited the amount of fine in Court as ordered by the Central Board of Revenue but he did not deposit the amount thereby he did not exhaust the other reme­dies envisaged in Ss. 188 and 189 of the Sea Customs Act, therefore this writ petition! being premature was not entertainable. (17) No other argument worth mention­ing was pressed before me. (18) In view of my foregoing discussions, I hold that the writ petition is without any merit and hence it is dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 200. Petition dismissed.