Judgment :- Room No. 28, Broadlands Lodge, at No. 8 Vallabh Agraharam, Triplicane, Madras was searched by the Inspector of Police, 'D' Division, Triplicane on 1-6-1964. The two petitioners herein, along with three others, were found in the room and certain goods of foreign origin were spread out on the floor of the room and some cash also was found. The Inspector of Police seized the goods and the cash and took the persons also to the police station and made a list of the articles seized. Subsequently they were handed over to the officers of the Central Excise Department. The authorities of the Central Excise Department issued a show cause notice to the petitioners herein on the allegation that the goods found in the room were smuggled goods. The petitioners sent their reply contending that they had arrived from Malaya by steamer on 31-5-1964 after a long stay away from India and they had brought the goods in question after examination by the Customs authorities at the Nagapattinam port and after payment of duty. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Integrated Division, No. 21. Nungambakkam High Road, Madras, 34, passed an order on 17-9-1965. He released certain goods on the basis of the duty receipt produced by the petitioners and with regard to the other goods, he confiscated them and levied a fine of Rs. 2, 680 in lieu of such confiscation. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 250 on each of the petitioners. It is necessary in this context to refer to the actual finding of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. That finding is to be found in paragraph 16 of the order of the officer which is as follows :- "The facts discussed above establish that Syed Ibrahim (Offender No. 1) and Vairavan Thandal (Offender No. 2) were the owners of all the goods involved in the seizure. In their replies to the show cause notice they did not furnish the details of the goods belonging to each. Syed Ibrahim has reported to have cleared the goods on payment of customs duty of Rs. 385 on the goods "valued at Rs. 350 plus Rs. 258 plus Rs. 335 ; and Vairavan Thandal cleared" the goods on payment of Rs. 110 as duty on the goods valued at Rs. 100. The total amount of duty paid by both the persons is Rs. 385 on the goods "valued at Rs. 350 plus Rs. 258 plus Rs. 335 ; and Vairavan Thandal cleared" the goods on payment of Rs. 110 as duty on the goods valued at Rs. 100. The total amount of duty paid by both the persons is Rs. 495 on goods valued Rs. 785. But the total value of the goods is Rs. 3, 572.70 on which duty works out to Rs. 3, 836.00. The goods mentioned in the recovery list are prohibited for import into India for a long time except as Passenger's baggage. The nature and quantity also clearly indicate that these must have been imported as passenger's baggage in the recent past and sold by the importer. Even since February 1963 there has been a prohibition on the sale of goods brought as passenger's baggage and passed without a licence. The circumstances of the case leave only one inference, namely that the seized goods include those previously imported by someone (other than the offenders as passenger's baggage) and sold contrary to the conditions under which the import was allowed. Hence they are liable for confiscation." * From this it will be clear that the Assistant Collector did not find that the petitioners themselves smuggled the goods in question, but they purchased the goods from somebody else who had smuggled the goods into India. For the purpose of coming to this conclusion, he relied on the fact that the petitioners had paid the Customs duty of Rs. 495 only on goods valued Rs. 3, 572.70 and the correct duty payable on goods of such value is Rs. 3, 836. 2.The Petitioners herein preferred appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras-I. That officer, by his order dated 12-9-1966, dismissed the appeal of the Petitioners except to the extent that he set aside the order of the Assistant Collector imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 250 on each of the petitioners herein. It is to quash these orders, the two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed. I am of the view that these orders suffer from several defects and they are liable to be quashed. 3.As I pointed out already, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before the order was actually passed. It is to quash these orders, the two Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed. I am of the view that these orders suffer from several defects and they are liable to be quashed. 3.As I pointed out already, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before the order was actually passed. The show cause notice with regard to the allegations made against the petitioners is in a cyclostyled form and it mentions : "Whereas there is reason to believe that goods seized on 3-6-1964 as per the Mahazar (copy enclosed) and mentioned in the annexed schedule have been illicitly imported into India from foreign country without a valid import licence under the Import and Export Control Act, 1947 and without payment of Customs duty in contravention of the Import Trade Control Act, 1947, and the currency seized being the sale proceeds thereof respectively and whereas there is reason to believe that Shri Syed Ibrahim, son of Mustafa, Periapatinam, Ramnad District, (Petitioner in W. P. No. 1144 of 1967), has acquired possession of the smuggled goods mentioned in the annexed schedule, has been concerned in carrying the smuggled goods, in dealing in the smuggled goods, harbouring the smuggled goods, concealing the goods, selling the smuggled goods, purchasing the smuggled goods. Shri Syed Ibrahim, son of Mustafa Periapattinam, Ramnad District, is called upon to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise, No. 21, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras 34 within 15 days after receipt of this notice.(i) Why the smuggled goods seized and mentioned in the annexed schedule should not be confiscated to Government under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 (ii)Why a penalty should not be imposed on him under sections 112(b) and 112(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962." * I may mention straightway that in these two Writ Petitions we are not concerned with the currency and we are concerned with the order confiscating the goods alone. I wish to make two comments on this show cause notice. In the first place, this notice does not allege or impute any particular, definite or specific conduct against the petitioners herein. All possible offences that might be committed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 4.There is one other significant feature in this case. I wish to make two comments on this show cause notice. In the first place, this notice does not allege or impute any particular, definite or specific conduct against the petitioners herein. All possible offences that might be committed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 4.There is one other significant feature in this case. I have already stated that both the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice, contended that they had arrived at Nagapattinam from Malaya after several years stay, on 31-5-1964 and they had brought the goods in question, along with them, after customs clearance and they had produced a receipt for payment of duty. With regard to the aspect of the matter, the Assistant Collector admits that the petitioner in W. P. No. 1143 of 1967 has paid a duty of Rs. 110 on goods valued Rs. 100 and the petitioner in W. P. No. 1144 of 1967 has paid a duty of Rs. 385 on goods valued Rs. 350 and the total value of the goods seized from them is said to be Rs. 3, 572.70. It is admitted before me that a person arriving in India after more than a year's stay outside is entitled to clearance of goods worth Rs. 1, 600 as part of his bona fide baggage without payment of duty. If so, admittedly the two petitioners herein were entitled to clearance of goods worth Rs. 3, 200 free of duty, because according to the petitioner in W. P. No. 1143 of 1967 he was returning to India after a lapse of 50 years and according to the petitioner in W. P. No. 1144 of 1967 he was returning to India after a period of 8 years. If so, the value of goods liable to duty would be only Rs. 372.70 and the payment of duty of Rs. 495 was fully consistent with their case that the goods brought by them were cleared through the Customs and after the allowance duty free goods, they paid a duty of only Rs. 495. The Assistant Collector of Customs who passed the original order never took this aspect into account and did not pay any consideration whatever to this case of the petitioners. 495. The Assistant Collector of Customs who passed the original order never took this aspect into account and did not pay any consideration whatever to this case of the petitioners. The appellate order, which is more summary, does not indicate that the officer paid any attention to any of these aspects of the matter urged before him by the petitioners herein. Under these circumstances I am of the view that the impugned orders cannot stand and therefore these two Writ Petitions are allowed and the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as confirmed by the Appellate Collector of Customs are quashed.