TMI Blog1926 (10) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereby he confiscated the goods and ordered their sale. Thereupon there was an appeal to the Governor in Council which was made by the plaintiff and was rejected. He now seeks the assistance of the ordinary Courts of the land to get his goods back or their value, and he has brought this suit which is one of trover against the Secretary of State on the ground that what was done amounted to a wrongful conversion of his goods, his case of course being that the orders made were illegal inasmuch as in truth and in fact his goods never were smuggled at all. 2. It seems to me that there are three difficulties that the plaintiff has not surmounted. In the first place, as he did not ask the Court for leave to bring his suit on the Original Side of this Court, he is faced with this difficulty that he must show that his cause of action arose wholly in Madras. The goods never came to Madras except a very small portion by way of exhibit for the purpose of this case, and if any wrong was done it was done by the seizure and detention of the goods in Salem or Coimbatore or Cuddalore, and the only step in the whole transaction that can be suggested to have been performed within the Madras jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow in the alternative or personally works for gain show that the business intended by the section is a commercial business and not a business of State or Government. 4. The result will be one that realty works no hardship. There is always a jurisdiction given within the local area where the wrong was done and it would have been perfectly open to the plaintiff here to sue the Secretary of State either in Salem or in Coimbatore or in Cuddalore--wherever the goods were in fact taken out of his possession. He has not chosen to do so. He has chosen to bring a suit on the Original Side of this Court without even taking the trouble to apply for leave on the ground that part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. 5. Finally the point is taken on behalf of the Secretary of State that this is a matter affecting the revenue and that Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act covers the matter. On that subject I have nothing to add to what I said in my own considered judgment which is reported in Best Co., Ltd. v. The Collector of Madras (1918)35MLJ23 , where I had to consider all the decisions affecting this matter and came to the conclusion that, however antiquate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his goods already seized should not be confiscated duly appeared before the local inspector but notwithstanding his appearance and his contentions the local Inspector referred the matter to the Collector of Customs, Madras. In view of the procedure 1 have already referred to it is obvious that the action of the local Inspector in referring the matter to the Collector of Madras indicates that, had the value of the goods been ₹ 250 or under, he himself would have made the order confiscating them. The Collector of Customs, Madras, made an order confiscating the goods and this order was duly communicated to the local Inspector who informed the plaintiff of the confiscation of the goods. The plaintiff then preferred an appeal to the Governor in Council who dismissed his appeal. The plaintiff now claims the return of the goods or their value from the defendant. 7. Two preliminary objections are taken by the defendant to the jurisdiction of this Court to try the plaintiff's suit. One is to the territorial jurisdiction and the other is, by reason of Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act, 1915 the High Courts may not exercise any original jurisdiction in any matter con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure. The seizure here cannot be right and the confiscation wrong. Either the seizure and the order for confiscation were right or both were wrong. For the purpose of upholding the objection on this part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent it is only necessary to hold that only a part of the cause of action arose outside the local limits of this High Court. For the reasons I have already stated I have no difficulty whatever in so holding. 8. The next contention is that even so he can sue by reason of the latter part of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which is: or if the defendant shall dwell or carry on business or personally work for gain within those limits. 9. It is contended that the defendant both dwelt and carried on business here at the commencement of the suit and in support of this contention the plaintiff has cited the decision of a Bench of this Court in Subbaraya Mudali v. The Government and Cunliffe (1863) 1 MHCR 286. In that case it was held that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent the Government must be considered as carrying on business at the place where its members exercise all the functions of Government, that is, in Madras. But even in that case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the revenue or concerning an act done in the collection thereof; and it is not out of place in this connection to mention what is done with goods seized and confiscated. They are sold and the proceeds go to the customs. Part of the revenue of the country is derived from the customs and the collection of the customs is a collection of part of the revenue of the country and I am prepared to hold that the sale of seized and confiscated goods and the taking by the customs authorities of those proceeds is the collection of customs and therefore of revenue. It is admitted by Mr. Narasimha Aiyar that penalties in the shape of double or treble duties imposed on smuggled goods would be revenue. Yet he contends that the money derived from the sale of seized or confiscated goods is not. I cannot myself see any distinction whatever. I may conjecture that one of the objects of the sale is to recoup the customs for the unpaid duty which, had it been paid, would have been revenue. But there is another obvious reason for this penalty and it is this : persons who bring dutiable goods into the country are required to declare their possession of them and to pay the proper duty which is then collecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
