TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rised them to import. The Customs authorities, on the contrary, held, on examination of the goods, that the constituted 51 sets of "Rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition". The Deputy Collector of Customs thereupon held an enquiry in pursuance of two show cause notices issued by him. 3. The result of the enquiry was an order under which the Deputy Collector directed confiscation of the said goods with an option to the respondents to pay certain sums in lieu of confiscation and also personal penalties. That order was passed on the basis that the goods imported were not parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters permissible under Entry 295 of the Schedule to the Import Control Order but were motor cycle/scooters in completely knocked down condition, prohibited under remark II against Entry 294, a licence in respect of goods covered by it would authorise import of motor cycles and scooters. The order of the Deputy Collector dated November 19, 1957 reads as under :"On examination of the goods and scrutiny of the documents relating to the Bills of Entry stated above, it was ascertained that M/s Tarachand Gupta and Bros, had imported 51 sets of "Rixe" Mopeds complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tribunal has failed to act in conformity with the fundamental rules of judicial procedure. He rejected the respondents' contention that the case fell within the first ground and held that however erroneous the Collector's decision might be, since it was within his jurisdiction to decide whether the goods fell under one entry or the other, a Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant relief. He also held that the order could not be said to be without or in excess of jurisdiction and was, therefore, not a nullity. The order consequently required to be set aside if the respondents were to have any relief, and therefore, Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied. On that basis he held the respondents' suit to be time-barred and dismissed it. 6. We may, at this stage, mention that in a similar matter involving import of spare parts and accessories under a licence relating to Entry 295, the Collector's order, on the basis that the goods fell under Entry 294, as the spare parts in question could, if all the different indents were taken together, constitute auto cycles in completely knocked down condition, was held to be bad as "the Collector's approach to the matter was wholly wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mopeds in C.K.D. condition. The respondents were entitled to import the said goods, and therefore, Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act did not apply and the respondents consequently could not have been held guilty of breach either of that section or Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The Bench also held that the decision of his Court in Girdharilal Bansidhar v. Union of India, (1964) 7 SCR 62 did not overrule but only distinguished the judgment in Anand's case, Civil Appl. No. 4 of 1959, dated 17-8-1960 (Bom.) and therefore, the binding force of that decision remained unshaken. Regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts, the Division Bench held that where the question is simply whether one or the other entry applied and the tribunal, to which jurisdiction is entrusted in that behalf, decides it erroneously, even then its order, made final by the statute conferring such jurisdiction, cannot be made the subject-matter of a suit. On the other hand, where its jurisdiction is confined to see whether the importation is under a particular entry or not, but while deciding such a question, the tribunal takes into account extraneous considerations, such as an entry which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we proceed to consider these contentions it is expedient first to look at the provisions of the relevant law. Under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Central Government by an order can provide for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling inter alia the import of goods of any specified description and all goods to which any such order applies are deemed to be goods of which the import has been prohibited by the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and all the provisions of that Act are to have effect accordingly. The Imports (Control) Order, 1955 passed under the power reserved under the Act, by Clause (3) therefore, provides that no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Schedule I thereto except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Central Government or by an officer specified in Schedule II. Sub-clause (2) of clause (3) provides that if it is found that the goods imported under a licence do not conform to the description given in such a licence under which they are claimed to have been imported, then without prejudice to any action that may be taken against the licensee under the Sea Customs Act in respect of such imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds "completely knocked down condition" in the entry are not used in any technical sense, and therefore, must be given their ordinary dictionary meaning, i.e, "made or constructed so as to be capable of being knocked down or taken apart, as for transportation : in parts ready to be assembled" (See Webster's New International Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 1371 and also Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition Vol. 23, p. 560). 13. Under Entry 295, except for rubber tyres and tubes for whose import a separate licence could be obtained under Entry 41 of Part V, there are no limitations as to the number or kind of parts or accessories which can be imported under a licence obtained in respect of the goods covered thereunder. Prima facie, an importer could import all the parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters and it would not be a ground to say that he has committed breach of Entry 295 or the licence in respect of the goods described therein, that the parts and accessories imported, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. There are no remarks against Entry 295, as there are against Entry 294, that a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the Collector can treat them together and say that they would constitute motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. Such an approach would mean that there is in Entry 295 a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters. Under that contention, even if the importer had sold away the first consignment or part of it, it would still be possible for the Collector to say that had the importer desired it was possible for him to assemble all the parts and make motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. Surely, such a meaning has not to be given to Entry 295 unless there is in it or in the licence a condition that a licensee is not to import parts in such a fashion that his consignments, different though they may be, when put together would make motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. Such a condition was advisedly not placed in Entry 295 but was put in Entry 294 only. The reason was that import of both motor cycles and scooters as also parts and accessories thereof was permitted, of the first under Entry 294 and of the other under Entry 295. A trader having a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 294 could import assembled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies in the Hand Book or in the Indian Tariff Act. In that case, the appellant, who had a licence to import iron and steel bolts, nuts, etc., imported nuts and bolts which were the components of `Jackson Type Single Bolt oval plate belts fasteners' which were described in the bill of entry as "Stove Bolts and Nuts". The Customs found that these were in reality the actual components of Jackson Type Single Bolt oval plate belts fasteners, import whereof was totally prohibited. The Collector, while arriving at his decision, took into account also the fact that washers, the third component of the prohibited article, were imported by a firm owned by the appellant's relations. On these facts, this Court held (1) that importing components of a prohibited article was importing the prohibited article, (2) that the evidence that washers imported by the relations of the appellant was considered by the Collector as evidence to confirm his conclusion that the nuts and bolts imported by him were in reality the components of the prohibited article, and (3) that where the decision of the statutory authority is whether an item falls under one or the other entry, the High Court could not interfere wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, not the goods in respect of which the licence was granted. Further, the articles in question, even when assembled together, were not prohibited articles as in Girdharilal's case, (1964) 7 SCR 62. Girdharilal's case, (1964) 7 SCR 62 is clearly distinguishable because it is not as if motor cycles and scooters are prohibited articles as was the case there. The restriction is not against licensees importing motor cycles and scooters under Entry 294 and parts and accessories under Entry 295 but against the licenses under Entry 294 importing motor cycles and scooters in C.K.D. condition. The question in the instant case was not under which of the two Entries 294 or 295 the goods fell, but whether the goods were parts and accessories covered by Entry 295. 20. In Firm Illuri Subbayya Chetty Sons v. Andhra Pradesh, (1964) 1 SCR 752 the suit filed by the appellants was for recovery of a sum paid by way of purchase tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939. The cause of action was that the amount had been illegally recovered. Relying on Section 18A of the Act, this Court held that the expression "any assessment made under this Act" in that section was wide enough to cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be treated as conclusive and that proper factual enquiry was necessary. The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable by reason of Section 8(1). Dua, J., speaking for the Bench, held that under Section 2 the special officer had to determine the average rate of cash rent per acre for each class of ryoti land such as wet, dry or garden. This could only be done on relevant material. The special officer, however, had based his determination on a report of his assistant, who has considered the entry in the settlement register of another village. That meant that the special officer had made his determination on irrelevant evidence, i.e., on the register which did not contain any data with respect to the land in the village in question. On these facts he held that the determination by the special officer was based on no evidence with the result that it was in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. A fortiori, the order of the Government made under Section 3(2) on the basis of the recommendations of the special officer was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and was therefore, outside the purview of Section 3(2) and consequently Section 8(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a tribunal properly embarking on an enquiry, that is, within its jurisdiction, but at the end of making an order in excess of its jurisdiction which was held to be a nullity though it was an order of the kind which it was entitled to make in a proper case. 23. The principle thus is that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred. Such exclusion, however, is inferred where the statutes gives finality to the order of the tribunal on which it confers jurisdiction and provides for adequate remedy to do what the Courts would normally do in such a proceeding before it. Even where a statute gives finality, such a provision does not exclude cases where the provisions of the particular statute have not been complied with or the tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. The word "jurisdiction" has both a narrow and a wider meaning. In the sense of the former, it means the authority to embark upon an enquiry; in the sense of the latter it is used in several aspects, one of such aspects being that the decision of the tribunal is in non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o because he would have to buy tyres, tubes and saddles to convert them into motor cycles and scooters into C.K.D. condition. That would be tantamount to the Collector making a new entry in place of Entry 295 which must mean non-compliance of that entry and acting in excess of jurisdiction during the course of his enquiry even though he had embarked upon the enquiry with jurisdiction. In our view that was precisely what the Collector did. This, is, therefore, not one of those cases where between two competing entries the statutory authority applied one or the other, though in error, and where a civil Court cannot interfere. 26. In this view the order was in non-compliance of the provisions of the statute, and, therefore, was covered by the exceptions laid down in Mask Co's. case, 67 Ind. App. 222. It was not an order in respect of which the Collector was invested with jurisdiction. That being so, the provision excluding the jurisdiction of civil Courts was not applicable. Indeed, the order was a nullity and Article 14 of the Limitation Act of 1908 could not be applied to hold the suit time barred. Even if Article 14 applied, it would not be time barred, if, as the High Court po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
