The short question that arises for determination in this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution by Amulya Chandra Paul of Belonia, Tripura, is whether the order dated 16-10-1961, passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs. Shillong, hereinafter called the Collector, is invalid, as contended by the petitioner or is unassailable in law, as urged on behalf of the respondents, who are the Collector, the Deputy Superin­tendent of the Customs Department, Agartala, and the Government of India. 2. The facts bearing on the controversy are that on 15-7-1961 the petitioner left Belonia in jeep No. TRT 43 with belt-like cloth bags containing obsolete coins, foreign as well as of Indian origin, with the object of disposing them of at Agartala. On reaching the bazaar of Udaipur, the jeep developed some trouble and so the petitioner proceeded with the aforementioned bags to the ferry point, close to the town of Udaipur and boarded bus No. TRS 45 for onward journey to Agartala. When the bus stopped at Kariya Dhepa, some officers of the Customs Department reached there in a jeep and asked the petitioner to get down from the bus. According to the petitioner, the bundle of coins lying inside the bus was seized by those officers and then those officers asked the bus driver to take the vehicle to the Customs House at Agartala. The petitioner was made to sit in that bus. The officers of the Customs Department followed the bus in their own jeep. The petitioner was asked to get down the bus when it reached the Customs House at Agartala. There he was firstly photographed, and thereafter told by the Superintendent of the Central Excise that he was under arrest. He was then interrogated respecting the coins recovered from him. The questions put to and the answers given by the peti­tioner were recorded and beneath each answer the petitioner appended his signature. He was kept in the lock­up of the Kotwali Police Station during the night and was produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Agartala, on the next day. That Magistrate released him on bail. 3. The questions put to and the answers given by the peti­tioner were recorded and beneath each answer the petitioner appended his signature. He was kept in the lock­up of the Kotwali Police Station during the night and was produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Agartala, on the next day. That Magistrate released him on bail. 3. It was on 22-7-1961 that the Customs Authorities held enquiry at Belonia to find out the veracity or otherwise of the stand taken by the petitioner, during the course of his interro­gation on 15th July; that he had purchased the seized coins in the open market at Belonia and that on the date of their seizure he was proceeding to Agartala to sell them to Roy Jewellery, Agartala. On completion of the enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Cus­toms submitted report dated 26-7-1961 to the Collector. The Collector issued show cause notice to the petitioner with a view to adjudi­cation of the charge whether the coins had been smuggled from East Pakistan. Per that notice a query was made from the petitioner if he would like to be heard personally. The petitioner exhibited his inability to appear personally before the Collector but he submitted a long representation refuting the allegation that he had smuggled the goods from East Pakistan. By order dated 16-10-1961, the Collector held that the coins had been illicitly imported by the petitioner from a foreign territory. He, therefore declar­ed the charge against the petitioner establish­ed and ordered confiscation of the whole lot of the coins under S. 7 (1) of the Land Cus­toms Act, 1924, read with Sections 167(8) and 19A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regu­lation Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Re­gulation. The confiscation, the Collector directed, shall be absolute in terms of S. 23A of the Regulation read with Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act. In addition, the Collector imposed on the petitioner a penalty of Rs. 6000/- under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. A copy of that order was sent to the petitioner on 27-10-1961 under registered cover. 4. Sometime after the receipt of the copy of the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue, Govt. of India, New Delhi, challenging the validity of that order. The Board communicated to the petitioner that he must deposit the entire penalty of Rs. 4. Sometime after the receipt of the copy of the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Board of Revenue, Govt. of India, New Delhi, challenging the validity of that order. The Board communicated to the petitioner that he must deposit the entire penalty of Rs. 6000/- in the Treasury on pain of dismissal of the appeal for non-com­pliance with the provisions of Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner was unable to deposit the penalty and so the ap­peal was dismissed on 17-8-1962. It was on 31st of May, 1964, that the instant writ peti­tion was filed by the petitioner, having been left with no other alternative for redress of his grievances. 5. The grounds urged in support of the prayer for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 16-10-1961 and 17-8-1962 are as under:- (1) That the seized coins being not con­traband goods there is no justification for confiscating them; (2) That there is no evidence to warrant the conclusion, reached by the Collector, that the coins had been smuggled from Paki­stan; (3) That the impugned order being based on evidence collected by the subordinate offi­cers of the Customs Department at the back of the petitioner cannot hold good in law; (4) That the impugned order offends against principles of natural justice and the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution of India; and (5) That the summary dismissal of the appeal by the Central Board of Revenue is illegal. 6. According to the version of the res­pondents the coins were not seized from the petitioner's seat in the bus but from his per­son. It was alleged that the petitioner had put the coins in belt-like bags and that he had tied the bags around his waist beneath his garments. It was also alleged that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the adjudica­tion officer, namely, the Collector, that he had purchased the coins from tribal people in the area as contended by him and that the concealment of the coins in the manner aforementioned, the non-availability of such coins at Belonia, that some of those coins are foreign, that Belonia is close to the Paki­stan border, and that the account books pro­duced by the petitioner did not establish that he had purchased the coins in the mar­ket, clearly indicated "clandestine importa­tion of the seized goods". The allegation of the petitioner that prin­ciples of natural justice had been violated was branded as completely unfounded. It was pleaded that notice had been issued to the petitioner before the enquiry was held at Belonia on 22-7-1961, that he failed to turn up to join that enquiry, and that he also refused to join the proceedings held by the Collector though he happened to submit a written representation. It was, therefore, the petitioner who was to blame for non-participation in the two stages of the proceedings and not the Authorities con­cerned. The Central Board of Revenue, it was urged, was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-deposit of Rs. 6000/- as re­quired by Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act. Some technical objections were also raised by the respondents including the one pertaining to belated institution of the writ petition but none of them was pressed during the course of arguments. As such, I see no necessity of reproducing them in this judgment. 7. The details of the coins seized from the petitioner are given in the inventory marked Annexure I. Three coins out of them are foreign, while the others, which are of silver, are those which were issued by the British Government of India before the partition of the country in 1947. The coins were confiscated and the penalty of Rupees 6000/- was imposed on the petitioner on the basis of Notification dated 10th of Sep­tember, 1949, as amended by another Noti­fication dated 24th of September, 1952, issued by the Central Government under Section 8 (1) of the Regulation. A copy of the amended Notification was supplied to this Court by Shri H. C. Nath, the learned Gov­ernment Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Notification pres­cribes that except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person shall bring or send into India from any place outside India any coins issued by the Government of India or any currency notes or Bank notes (whether in circulation or unissued). The restriction qua the coins it will be noticed, relates only to coins issued by the Government of India. Therefore, the three foreign coins seized from the petitioner could not have been confiscated in terms of the Notification, nor any penalty imposed upon him for their alleged import. Hence, the order concerning those three coins has to be quashed. The restriction qua the coins it will be noticed, relates only to coins issued by the Government of India. Therefore, the three foreign coins seized from the petitioner could not have been confiscated in terms of the Notification, nor any penalty imposed upon him for their alleged import. Hence, the order concerning those three coins has to be quashed. I may mention in passing that in the notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent, Belonia, on 22-7-1961 to the peti­tioner the latter was asked to appear before him in connection with the seizure of some obsolete silver coins. No mention therein was made of the foreign coins which admittedly are of gold. The Notification relates only to coins issued by Government of India and it is common knowledge that the Govern­ment of India has never issued gold coins. It is, therefore, really surprising that the Collector should have confiscated the three gold coins especially when they were issued by Governments other than Indian. 8. Section 23-A of the Regulation pro­vides inter alia, that the restrictions imposed by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the Regulation shall be deemed to have been imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and all the provisions of the latter Act shall have effect accordingly. The Noti­fication dated 10th of September, 1949, having been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Regulation, Shri H. C. Nath therefore contended that the order confis­cating the coins and imposing penalty on the petitioner must be deemed to have been passed under first part of Clause (8) of Sche­dule 2, Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act. The Noti­fication dated 10th of September, 1949, having been issued under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Regulation, Shri H. C. Nath therefore contended that the order confis­cating the coins and imposing penalty on the petitioner must be deemed to have been passed under first part of Clause (8) of Sche­dule 2, Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act. The first part of the clause reads: "If any goods, the importation or exportation of which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or under Chapter IV of this Act, be imported into or exported from India contrary to such prohibition or restriction." In column (3) of the Schedule opposite to this entry the penalties prescribed are: "such goods shall be liable to confiscation; and any person concerned in any such offence shall e liable to a penalty not exceeding three times the value of the goods, or not exceed­ing one thousand rupees." In view of the Notification reproduced above and the pro­visions of Clause (8) of the Schedule of Sec­tion 167 of the Sea Customs Act, read with Section 23-A of the Regulation, there can be no dispute, nor was any raised on behalf of the petitioner, that if the coins of the nature mentioned in the Notification are im­ported into India without the permission of Reserve Bank then they -can be confiscated and the person concerned with their impor­tation can be imposed penalty to the extent indicated. 9. The questions that arise for determi­nation in view of that legal position are whether the coins seized from the petitioner had been imported from Pakistan as alleged by the Customs Authorities and as held by the Collector, and whether the petitioner is concerned in any manner with the offence of importation of those coins. It is well, settled that though the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act do not apply to the proceedings under­taken by the Customs Authorities under the Sea Customs Act or the Land Customs Act, unless those provisions are statutorily made applicable, as is found in Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act to cite an instance, fee fundamental principles of Criminal Jurispru­dence as also of natural justice apply to such proceedings, which are clearly of quasi-criminal nature. It is equally well settled that the burden of proof for establishing the charge in such proceedings is on the Cus­toms Authorities and they have to bring home the guilt to the person alleged to have com­mitted a particular offence under the said Acts by adducing satisfactory evidence. If any authority were needed in support of these propositions reference may usefully be made to the decision in Amba Lai v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 264 ; Identical view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1968 Cal 524 , N. G. Roy v. Union of India, and by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Shah Hastimal v. Asst Collector, Central Excise, Anantapur, AIR 1969 Andh Pra 139. Shri H. C. Nath was unable to cite any authority to the contrary. It is in this background of the law that 1 proceed to determine whether there was any evidence before the Collector to take him to the conclusions that the coins had been imported from some foreign country and that the petitioner was concerned in com­mitting that offence. 10. Indisputably the Collector based his findings on the material collected by the Deputy Superintendent, Agartala, during the course of the enquiry held by him on 22-7-1961 at Belonia. It has also to be men­tioned that the Collector had taken into con­sideration, while reaching his conclusions, the statement made by the petitioner soon after the coins were seized. The entire evi­dence collected by the Deputy Superinten­dent has been placed on the present record. It comprises of the statements of Rajeswar Banik (Annexure F/B), Gopal Ch. Paul (Annexure F/C), Nani Gopal Banik (An­nexure F/D), and Haran Ch. Paul (Annexure F/E). In addition, there is also the state­ment dated 23-7-1961 of one Suresh Ch. Banik. Its copy is Ext. F-F. A copy of the statement made by the petitioner is marked Ext. F/A. The first mentioned four wit­nesses deposed only this much that there is no market in Belonia for transacting busi­ness in obsolete silver coins, that in all pro­bability such coins are imported from some foreign country, and that they are generally taken to Calcutta for sale. These averments do not constitute any evidence to prove the allegations that the seized coins had been imported from Pakistan or that the petitioner was concerned in any manner with their importation. The fifth witness Suresh Ch. These averments do not constitute any evidence to prove the allegations that the seized coins had been imported from Pakistan or that the petitioner was concerned in any manner with their importation. The fifth witness Suresh Ch. Banik, who is an employee of the petitioner, deposed that he had never seen the petitioner pur­chasing or selling obsolete silver coins at Belonia, and that as such he had no know­ledge about the purchase, if any, of such coins made by the petitioner. This state­ment again may negative the contention of the petitioner that he had purchased the coins from tribal people or others at Tieloma, but can by no stretch of reasoning consti­tute proof of the facts that the seized coins had either been imported or the petitioner was concerned with their importation. Lastly, we have the statement of the petitioner him­self. The substance of that statement is that the petitioner had been purchasing from time to time obsolete coins in the open mar­ket at Belonia, that since his business was much too small he had not kept any account books showing the purchases made by him, and that he had boarded the bus at the ferry point out of fear of detection of the coins carried by him by the officials of the Customs Department whom he happened to notice standing near that ferry point. He denied any knowledge that the coins of the nature seized from him had been im­ported from Pakistan. These averments of the petitioner may at the best betray him as a 'suspected importer of the coins but they cannot sustain the finding that he had been involved in the importation of those coins from Pakistan. Suspicions however deep cannot be a substitute for evidence; nor any finding having evil consequences can be based on mere suspicions. Further, a plain reading of first part of Clause (8) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act clearly brings out that only the. 'person concerned in' the importation of goods, of which the import is prohibited or restricted, is made liable. It follows that mere possession of such goods, or their carriage from one station to another inside India, or even their dis­posal in India, is not punishable. 'person concerned in' the importation of goods, of which the import is prohibited or restricted, is made liable. It follows that mere possession of such goods, or their carriage from one station to another inside India, or even their dis­posal in India, is not punishable. It is not inconceivable that the petitioner was not concerned with the importation of the coins as contended by him, and that he acquired them after the stage of import had come to an end. It is also not beyond the range of possibility that the coins had been law­fully imported by some one and then ac­quired by the petitioner. The Notification dated 10th of September, 1949 does not prohibit the import of coins of the nature mentioned therein absolutely; it does envi­sage import with the permission of Reserve Bank. In the absence of any data how and when the seized coins had been imported, if at all, it is not fair to conclude that the petitioner was concerned with their import. 11. That the entire approach of the Cus­toms Authorities right up to the Collector to the case was legally wrong and regret­tably biased is revealed by what was men­tioned in para 11 of the affidavit-in-reply. I reproduce the following extract therefrom: "It is submitted by these respondents that the petitioner failed to satisfy the adjudicat­ing officer that he came to possess the seized goods from tribal people. Rather the mode of concealment of the seized goods, non ­availability of the kind of goods seized at the place of residence of the petitioner, pre­sence of foreign coins in the seized goods and absence of any link between the ac­count books as maintained by the petitioner and the receipts as produced by him before the Adjudicating officer and the result of en­quiry made by the Customs Officers subse­quent to the seizure and the petitioner's place of residence being very close to Paki­stan indicated clandestine importation of the seized goods." In the show cause notice, copy Annexure 5, issued to the petitioner by the Collector, again, it was not mentioned that there was evidence to show that the petitioner had im­ported the coins from Pakistan. The actual words used were that "there is reason to be­lieve" that the coins had been imported by him from Pakistan. The actual words used were that "there is reason to be­lieve" that the coins had been imported by him from Pakistan. The phraseology of the notice thus clearly indicates that apart from some suspicions there was no dependable evidence in the possession of the Collector indicating the commission of the offence charged. In Para 1 of the Collector's im­pugned order dated 16-10-1961 it is men­tioned: "Shri Amulya Chandra Paul could not produce any valid document for legal importation of the goods, and that the mode of concealment, disparity in the prices of seized goods in India and Pakistan, the peti­tioner's admission of having brought the coins from Belonia, a place on the Indo-Pakistan border, led the Customs Officers to believe that the obsolete coins found in pos­session of the petitioner had been illicitly imported into India". In para 2 of the order the Collector hap­pened to discuss the evidence collected by his subordinate staff against the petitioner. His findings were that all the witnesses had affirmed that obsolete coins are not sold in belonia, that there was no dealer in such coins in that town, and that some of those witnesses had "opined" that obsolete coins "might" have been imported from Pakistan. He founded the verdict of guilty on the facts (vide para 5 of his order) that the seized coins were being brought from a border town where such coins are not available, that the receipts pro­duced by the petitioner do not lend support to the entries made in the account books kept by him, that it is unbelievable that the purchases, if any, made by the petitioner would remain unaccounted for, and that as such no reliance could be placed on those receipts. Other factors relied upon by the Collector to support his verdict were the modus operandi of the coins, their having been brought from a town where they are not available, and existence of some foreign coins amongst them. I am afraid none of these factors is con­sistent with the conclusion that the goods had been smuggled from a foreign country and that the smuggler was none other than the petitioner. It has to be emphasised that the coins are admittedly such, which had originally been issued by Government of India, before 1947, and if so they could be collected from somewhere within India. It has to be emphasised that the coins are admittedly such, which had originally been issued by Government of India, before 1947, and if so they could be collected from somewhere within India. In the case of Sanwarmal v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, AIR 1964 Assam and Nagaland 121, some cinnamon had been seized from Sanwarmal and the goods were confiscated and penalty imposed on hint under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. The High Court observed in Para 53 of its judgment that though cinnamon does not fall within the ambit of Section 178-A of the Sea Customs Act, yet the Collector has dealt with the case in a manner as i| when a person was found with cinnamon which could not be imported without a licence, the burden was on him to prove that he came by it honestly. The Collector wanted the accused, the High Court observed further, to prove that he got cinnamon legally and had then taken the goods from Calcutta to Shillong. This approach of the Collector was held to be illegal and in consequence his order confiscating the goods was quashed. Likewise appears to be the situation respecting the case in hand. The Collector assumed on the basis of cer­tain suspicious circumstances, already detail­ed above, that it was for the petitioner to establish that he had come into possession of the goods by some honest means or that they were not smuggled goods. Since his approach to the whole case was prejudicial to the petitioner and is opposed to the prin­ciples enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Amba Lal AIR 1961 SC 264 (supra), I have to adjudge it and the ulti­mate conclusion reached on the basis thereof' as unjustified in law. 12. The contention canvassed by Amba Lal before the Supreme Court was that a part of the goods seized from him had been imported by him from Pakistan before the Customs Barrier had been established be­tween Pakistan and India in 1948, while the Department vehemently urged that he had imported the goods after that date. Since there was no evidence to sustain the version of the Customs Authorities, the Supreme Court on holding that the onus lay on the Authorities to prove the charge quashed the order concerning that part of the goods. Since there was no evidence to sustain the version of the Customs Authorities, the Supreme Court on holding that the onus lay on the Authorities to prove the charge quashed the order concerning that part of the goods. The facts of N. G. Roy's case, AIR 1968 Cal 524 cited above bear a close parallel to the facts of the case in hand. The Calcutta High Court held in that case, that though the goods had clearly been imported from Eng­land against the Government's Notification issued under Imports and Exports (Control)! Act, 1947, yet there being no evidence that the petitioner N. G. Roy was concerned with their importation it was not possible to sus­tain the confiscation order made by the Collector. Some of the watches seized from Shan Hastimal of the Andhra Pradesh case, AIR 1969 Andhra Pradesh 139 referred to above were of clearly foreign make hut the High Court quashed the Collector's order of confiscation on the Endings that the importation of watches is only restricted and not completely prohibited, that there is no prohibition against the free purchase and sale of imported watches within the country even if they be imported, that mere possession of imported watches is not an offence, and that in such circumstances from the mere failure of the person in possession of foreign-made watches to properly account for such possession, it cannot be legitimately inferred that the watches had been imported in contravention of the Imports (Control) Order. Following the ratio of the decisions in the three cases just discussed, I hold that the Collector went clearly wrong in confis­cating the coins and imposing a penalty o£ Rs, 6.000 on the petitioner on the sole ground that the latter had failed to establish that he had acquired the coins in some legi­timate manner. The burden of establishing that the coins had been imported from some foreign country and that the petitioner was concerned with their importation squarely rested on the Customs Authorities, and on their failure to marshall any evidence to support those facts it was clearly wrong for the Collector to make the impugned order. 13. Shri H. C. Nath vehemently urged that since writ court is not an ordinary court of appeal, it is not open to it to examine the correctness or otherwise of a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal located within its jurisdiction. 13. Shri H. C. Nath vehemently urged that since writ court is not an ordinary court of appeal, it is not open to it to examine the correctness or otherwise of a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal located within its jurisdiction. As an abstract proposition of law, the submission made by Shri H. C. Nath is unexceptionable. However, it is beyond dispute that if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that has to be considered as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court held in the case of Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 , that the jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation neces­sarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior court of Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be-reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The Supreme Court at the same time pointed out that an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a Tribunal, the Supreme Court emphasised, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. The Supreme Court observed further that if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which, can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. I have shown above that the Collector had absolutely no evidence in sup­port of the verdict that the coins had either been imported or that the petitioner was connected with their importation. The con­clusion I am therefore led to is that there is a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record and so this Court has the right to quash the order dated 16-10-1961 of the Collector by issuing a writ of certiorari. 14. The con­clusion I am therefore led to is that there is a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record and so this Court has the right to quash the order dated 16-10-1961 of the Collector by issuing a writ of certiorari. 14. As a result, I accept the petition and quash the orders issued by the Collector and the one passed by the Central Board of Revenue by issuing a writ of certiorari against all the respondents who shall also pay the costs of the proceedings to the petitioner.! Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Petition allowed.