TMI Blog1960 (11) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn Maid , 76 pieces of M.S. plates to BSS-15, size 1-1/8 x 4' x 8', weighing 49.817 long tons, into the Port of Calcutta. On arrival of the said vessel at the Port of Calcutta on or about the 2nd week of February, 1958, the petitioner on 13th February, 1958 submitted a Bill of Entry for home consumption, relating to the said consignment. In the Bill of Entry so submitted, the value of the goods was declared as 1762-15-6 c.i.f. The petitioner further obtained a custom clearance permit in respect thereof, being No. SIC/CP/TDS/1201/124, wherein, the value was shown as ₹ 23,586/- c.i.f. This Bill of Entry together with the clearance permit was accepted by the Customs authorities and registered as I. F. R. No. 423 of 14-2-1958. Thereafter, the goods were assessed and it is admitted that under item 63(19) of the Tariff Schedule, the goods were found to be duty free. They were cleared from the custom barrier, between 18th and 22nd February, 1958. Thereafter, the custom authorities received certain informations and seized a number of documents and files from the office of the petitioner firm. It appears from the documents so seized, that the petitioner had imported these 76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 3 o the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act. Thereupon, instead of showing cause, the petitioner made this application and this rule was issued on 12th November, 1959 by Sen, J., who also issued an Order of interim injunction. The matter has now come up before me for hearing. 2. Mr. Deb appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has taken two points. The first point taken is that the goods concerned in this case, having left the custom barrier, after obtaining an order of removal under Section 89 of the Sea Customs Act, there is no further jurisdiction left in the customs authorities to issue the show-cause notice, or to levy any penalty, or indeed, to take any further steps in the matter under the Sea Customs Act. The second point taken is that even assuming that the facts stated in the show cause notice are true, the matter does not come within the purview of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, and that the show-cause notice and the proceedings initiated thereby, are without jurisdiction. 3. I shall now deal with the first point, which is of some public importance. Mr. Deb argues that the whole scheme of the Sea Customs Act sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bill of entry shall be allowed after such goods have been removed from the custom-house. Section 39 deals with the case of realisation of duty not levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded. Section 55 deals with the preparation of the manifest, which must be in accordance with the bill of entry. Section 82 lays down that no goods shall be allowed to leave any such vessel, unless entered in the original manifest and Section 86 lays down that the manifest should be in accordance with the bill of entry. Section 89 relates to the clearance of goods for home consumption which has already been set out above. I do not see how these sections support the argument that has been advanced by the learned counsel. On the contrary, it is evident that if the allegations made by the Customs authorities be true, each of these provisions of law has been violated. Coming to section 167(8) we find that there are two kinds of penalty contemplated. One is a penalty which attaches to the goods, which are liable to confiscation and is, therefore, a penalty in ram. There is also a penalty that can be imposed upon a person concerned , not only in the illegal importation of goods but also in any attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plied, it was necessary to multiply the meter dial reading by ten. But owing to the mistake on the part of the appellants, that was not done over a period of 28 months, with the result that during that time the respondents were charged with only 1/10th of the electric energy supplied to them. On a claim by the appellants to recover the balance, it was urged that the appellants had made out bills and had taken certain amounts as electric charges and had given receipts. It was urged that thereafter, they were estopped from saying that the proper charges were not levied. Lord Maugham said as follows: It cannot be doubted that if the appellants, with every possible formality, had purported to release their right to sue for the sums remaining due according to the schedules, such a release would be null and void. A contract to do a thing which cannot be done without a violation of the law is clearly void. It may be asked with force why, if a voluntary release will not put an end to the obligation of the respondents, an inadvertent mistake by the appellants acted upon by the respondents can have the result of absolving the appellants from their duty of collecting and receiving payment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be decided according to law. I do not see how it can be said that the Assistant Collector of Customs has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It is true that if a judicial tribunal attempts to deal with a matter which it has no jurisdiction to deal with, then the writ-court may intervene. But that signifies an initial lack of jurisdiction, which must be patent on the face of the proceedings. It would be absurd to hold that immediately upon the tribunal issuing a show-cause notice, the importer can come to this court, to have the merits of the case investigated. In that event, this court will have to go into the merits of each and every show-cause-notice issued by the customs authorities. Mr. Deb, however, argues that upon the facts stated in the show-cause notice itself, it appears that the conclusion must inevitably be that no offence has been committed under Section 167(8). Firstly, I do not at present agree with that proposition, for reasons stated above. Secondly, that does not mean that the Assistant Collector of Customs has no jurisdiction to decide the point. If that is the law, then no court would ever be able to deal with a case in which the plaint discloses no cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t before even the enquiry can be made it must first be shown that there has been contravention. The mere fact that in the notice a statement has been made to the effect that it appeared to the authority that there has been contravention does not, in my opinion, make it necessary for this court to examine the question whether there are grounds which would justify the authority to say that it so appeared to him. The substance of the matter is this that the authority being of opinion that an enquiry is required to ascertain whether there has been such contravention as would entail an order of confiscation and other penalties, he has issued a notice. All that the statement mentioned above, that the sale proceeds were deemed to be liable to confiscation, should be taken reasonably to mean is that there are good grounds in his opinion for making an enquiry into the matter. 7. It is unnecessary therefore to reiterate the position in law upon this point, which seems to me to have been clearly enunciated above. I have been informed that this decision is the subject matter of an appeal to the Supreme Court. But until the decision is set aside, it must be taken to be good law. For these r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
