JUDGMENT
V.C. Daga, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order in original dated 19th October, 1987 (“impugned order” for short) passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, who in exercise of powers conferred under section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 (“Act” for short) confiscated “form, fill and sealing machine” under section 111(d) and (m) of the Act and gave option to the petitioners under section 125 of the Act to pay fine of Rs. 6,50,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the reasons recorded in the impugned order.
FACTS:
2. The facts in short reveal that petitioner No. 1, being armed with Industrial Licence issued by the Ministry of Industries, Government of India for manufacture of Tomato Paste/Puree, Frozen Vegetables and Ready-to-serve Food, desired to import “Form, fill, and sealing machine’. Accordingly, order was placed on the foreign supplier on 17th December, 1986. The goods arrived at Bombay Port on or about 20th August, 1987 and the petitioners filed prior Bill of Entry No. 2071/1421 dated 17th August, 1987 in the Customs House at Bombay for clearance thereof. The petitioners on 20th August, 1987 itself paid duty of Rs. 6,26,143/-. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Docks) felt that the machine did not have vacuumising and gas flushing arrangement. The second petitioner explained that the same would be procured locally as it was not economical to import the same. The customs authorities on 13th October, 1987 issued show cause notice. The petitioners replied the show cause notice by itself letter dated 15th October, 1987. The petitioners appeared before respondent No. 2, the Collector of Customs, Bombay on 19th October, 1987 for personal hearing. The respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19th October, 1987 confiscated the goods and gave option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine together with penalty as enumerated in the opening para of this judgment. The Collector of Customs recorded following reasons in support of his order:
“(a) The goods were examined in the Docks. During the examination, the officers did not find the vacuum pump which is the major part to cause vacuumising in the machine. They also did not find the gas analyser and other parts fitted on the machine, in order to confirm the declared description in the bill of entry and the invoice presented to the customs at that time. In their letter dated 28-9-1987 the importers admitted this position. It was on an inquiry from the Assistant Collector to the importers that they furnished the L/C and Bank attested invoices etc. This document gave a different description. Perusal of these documents shows that purchase order was placed on 11th December, 1986 and the L/C was opened on 27-2-1987. The documents received through the banking channel as per the contract does not show that the machine is with vacuumising and gas flushing system.
(b) I find that the importers in their letter dated 15-10-1987 have admitted that the machine is not fitted with the above mentioned parts. Yet they claimed that the machine is fitted and capable of functioning as vacuumising and gas flushing machine for the packing of food products. They have claimed that the cost of the asscessories/parts for these being high, they have not imported them. These two contentions are contradictory to each other. It cannot be that the machine is not fitted with such major parts which can cause vacuumising and gas flushing, yet it is one, which is entitled to O.G.L. and concessional rate of duty. The machine has imported has to be judged for benefit.
(c) It is also relevant to mention the contradictory description in the two invoices. If the importers were so sure about it, they would not have attempted to obtain and furnish two sets of documents as brought out above. The importers have thus furnished false invoice and packing list in order to evade customs duty to the extent of Rs. 13 lacs approximately.”
The Collector of Customs also recorded finding that the petitioners have clearly admitted that they did not import this machine with vacuumising and gas flushing facility to save the foreign exchange which clearly proved that the machine as imported was without these attachments. The above order is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
FINDINGS
3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the impugned order cannot be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction of this Court for more than one reason. Firstly, the Collector of Customs relied upon the admission of the petitioner extracted in para 14 of the impugned order. Admission is the best piece of evidence in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Thiru John v. Returning Officer, . It is therefore absolutely clear that the machine has been imported by the petitioners without vacuumising and gas flushing system and, consequently, it was not eligible for import under O.G.L. nor for assessment under concessional rate of duty under notification 125 of 1986. The said finding of fact cannot be disturbed in the writ jurisdiction.
4. Apart from the aforesaid finding of fact, the other ground on which this petition cannot succeed is the act of misrepresentation by the petitioner before the original authority. The petitioner tried to place invoice showing import of the machine with vacuumising and gas flushing system. In para 13(c) of the impugned order the Collector of Customs recorded categorical finding that the importers had furnished false invoice and packing list in order to evade customs duty to the extent of Rs. 13,00,000/- approximately. The petitioners could not challenge this finding successfully before us. The petitioners could not demonstrate as to how this finding is wrong. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for the petitioners found it difficult to get over this finding recorded by the Collector of Customs in the impugned order. Needless to mention that when the petitioners have tried to play with the authorities and furnished false evidence and found it difficult to get out of this situation, we do not think that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be allowed to invoke at the instance of such petitioners. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P., and All India State Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India, 1990 S.C.C. 336, the powers under Article 226 are always to be used to effectuate the regime of law and not to abrogate it see Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, .
5. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, we cannot overlook important observations of the Apex Court made in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, , reiterated in the case of Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, . In the said judgment it is observed that:
“The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of Court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court’s environment, so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar Acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.”
In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.