RESPONDENT: JASJIT SINGH, ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OFCUSTOMS & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS SHAH, J.C. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA CITATION: 1964 AIR 1140 1964 SCR (6) 594 CITATOR INFO : R 1964 SC1154 (37) R 1965 SC 40 (6) R 1965 SC 722 (11,38) R 1965 SC1595 (24,42) R 1971 SC 44 (32) D 1971 SC 870 (15) D 1979 SC1029 (10,23) D 1987 SC1629 (17) RF 1988 SC 603 (11,29) RF 1991 SC 818 (37) RF 1992 SC2219 (53,134) ACT: Sea CustomsProhibition of entry of certain types of ships in India Section 52A When applicableWhether mens rea nacessaryNature of liability under s. 167(12A)Section 167(12A) and s. 183Petition under Art. 136 when competent When is a body or authority a CourtWhether the Central Board of Revenue or Central Government a Tribunal under Art. 136Whether penalty of Rs. 25 lacs excessiveWhether s. 52A ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 and 31(1) and hence invalid Constitution of India, Art. 136Sea Customs Act, 1878, ss. 52A, 167(12A), 183, 188, 190A and 191. HEADNOTE: The appellant carries on the business of carriage of goods and passengers by sea and owns a fleet of ships for that purpose. One of its ships named Eastern Saga arrived at Calcutta and was rummaged by the Calcutta Customs Officers. In the sailors' accommodation, a hole measuring 2 1/2 x 5 1/2 was found in the wall panelling behind the back batton of a wooden seat which had been screwed to the wall. The hole was covered with a piece of wood and overpainted. The hole opened into a space and in that space, Customs Officers found 1,458 bars of gold valued at more than Rs. 23 lacs. Notices were duly served and after hearing the parties, the Additional Collector of Customs came to the conclusion that the vessel had rendered itself liable to confiscation under s. 167(12A) because it had infringed the provisions of s. 52A. He ordered the confiscation of the ship but gave the owners thereof an option to pay a fine of Rs. 25 lacs in lieu of confiscation. The appellant went in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue but that appeal was rejected. The appellant went in revision to the Central Government but the revision petition was also dismissed. 'Me appellant then came to this Court for special leave and obtained the same. Dismissing the appeal Held: (i) The Customs authorities. were right in holding that the facts proved in the case showed that the "Eastern Saga" nor contravened the provisions of s. 52A when it entered the port of Calcutta and hence had incurred the liability prescribed by s. 167(12.A) of the Sea Customs Act. (ii) The fine of Rs. 25 lacs was not excessive. Illegal importation of gold had assumed the proportions of a major problem facing the country and it was open to the Customs authorities to take the view that the best way to check smuggling was to impose deterrent fines whenever those offences were discovered and proved. (iii) Section 52A was not ultra vires Arts. 14, 19 and 31(1) and hence was not unconstitutional or invalid. The appellant was not only 595 a company but also a foreign company and as such was not entitled to claim the benefits of Art. 19. The plea under Art. 31(1) as well as under s. 14 could not be sustained for the simple reason that in supporting the said two pleas, the appellant had inevitably to fall back upon the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(f). Before an appeal can be entertained under Art. 136, two conditions have to be satisfied. The order impugned must be an order of a judicial or quasijudicial character and should not be purely an administrative or executive order. The said order should have been passed either by a Court or Tribunal in the territory of India. It is difficult to lay down any definite test to determine whether a body is a court/tribunal or not. Sometimes, courts enquire whether that body or authority is clothed with the trappings of a court, whether it can compel witnesses to appear before it and administer oath to them, whether it was required to follow certain rules of procedure, whether it was bound to comply with the rules of natural justice whether it was expected to deal the matters before it fairly, justly and on merits and not be subjective considerations and whether it was re