to keep the permit with the consignment for all times and at all places. Nor is the importer under a duty to keep the consignment in his hands. He can sell portions of it to different buyers and obviously he could not give the permit to every consumer. [540 G-HJ Before March 29, 1968 when the Central Board of Revenue framed the Chinese Silver Dollars (Import) Rules, there was no provision in the ! Act or Rules in force which required the appellants to keep the permits at Sonapur airstrip with the dollars seized on that date. Section 5(3) B was not infringed when the carriers did not produce the permit concerning the goods at the Sonapur airstrip on May 18, 1957, and the goods could not be confiscated under s. 5(3). [5'41 CJ (ii) Nor were the goods liable to confiscation under s. 7(1) of the Land Customs Act. There was no evidence to show that the seized dollars were not covered by licences. On. the materials on record the conclusion was irresistible that due to the inad,·ertcnce of the carriers c the permits were inter changed and that application No. 34 was sent with 'H.N.' consignment and application No. 32 was kept with 'H.D.' consignment. No inference of smuggling could be drawn from the fact that 'H.D.' consignment was found with application No. 32. In the circumstances the finding that the appellant had smuggled the goods and was guilty of an offence under s. 7 ( 1) of the Land Customs Act must be characterised as perverse. [541 D-E; 542 B-CJ . • ' D (iii) It was also not proved that the aopeUant committed an.y offence under ss. 8(1) and 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act read with ss. 19 and 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. Although the offence under these sections may be proved by circumstantial evidence in the present case there was no evidence direct or circumstantial to prove the offence. [542 DJ lssardas Daulat Ram v. Union of India, [1962J Supp, 1 S.C.R, 358, E referred to. (iv) Having regard to the facts on the record no tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the dollars were liable to confiscation if they properly understood the relevant enactments. In the circumstances the order of the Collector confiscating the goods was liable to be quashed by a writ 'of certiorari. [542 F) I I F Regina v. Medical Appeal Triburtal, [1957] 1 Q.B. 574, 582, applied. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1332 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 37-D of 1964. G I B. Sen, D. K. Kapur, B. P. Maheshwari and R. K. Maheshwari, for the appellant. R. M. Mehta ·and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H Bachawat, ;J. The appellant, M/s. Hind Trading Company, imported 1,65,000 pieces of Chinese Silver Dollars from Yatung in Tibet to Kalimpong, via Nathula pass am;! Rangpo through
