TMI Blog1975 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom duty under certain conditions. It is stated in the Petition that the Customs authorities follow two procedures for clearance of goods imported by the Petitioners, for the purpose of re-exporting the same as ship stores or otherwise. It is unnecessary to set out the two procedures mentioned in the Petition because in the present case the Court is concerned with the only question as to whether the conditions imposed upon the Petitioners in the Public Notice, dated 22nd February 1964, Exh. A, to the Petition, are valid and binding and even assuming the same to be valid, whether the Petitioners are bound to act upon those conditions mentioned therein. Relevant Sections of the Customs Act viz., Sections 12, 13 and 23 are set out below: "12. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, duties of customs shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, or any other law for the time being in force, on goods imported into, or exported from, India. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of all goods belonging to Government as they apply in respect of goods not belonging to Governm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that at some time even after 1966, the Petitioners were permitted to operate on the bond and issued the goods as per the said Shipping Bill. After certain further correspondence the Petitioners received a letter dated 9th December 1968, from Respondent No. 1 stating that unless the Petitioners paid the arrears of undisputed duty amounting to Rs. 16,531.88 ps. and Rs. 99,524.69 ps. as arrears of disputed duty as on 31st July 1969, within a month from the receipt of the said letter by the Petitioners, the Petitioners' operations in Bond are liable to be stopped. The Petitioners have paid the arrears of undisputed amount of duty amounting to Rs. 16,531.88 ps. and have challenged the rights of the Respondents to claim the amount of Rs. 99,524.69 ps. in respect of the disputed duty on the ground that the claim relates to shortage of goods which were either not landed in India and therefore not imported into India or which were pilfered after the unloading and before the Customs proper officer made an order for deposit in a warehouse. 5. The grounds on which this right of the Respondents to stop the operation in Bond by the Petitioners is concerned, is that the Petitioners were directe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ft has been duly reported by them to the police who are investigating into the matter and further containing an undertaking that in the event of the goods or part thereof being found or recovered, they will not be restored to the importer without First informing the Customs House; and (iv) Any other documentary evidence such as correspondence of claim with Steamer agents, Insurance Cos. etc., which the Customs House may call for having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. Under sub-cl. (c) a duty is cast upon the importer to produce a certificate from the Bombay Port Trust stating that the goods in question were landed in good order and that the theft has been duly reported by them to the police who are investigating into the matter and a further undertaking that in the event of the goods or part thereof being found or recovered the Bombay Port Trust will not part with the same without first informing the Customs House. As stated that the Petitioners cannot comply with these conditions on all occasions because the Bombay Port Trust is a third party and the Petitioners cannot and are not in a position to impose their own will upon the Bombay Port Trust to grant su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity or a Regional Transport Authority : and such Transport Authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions." "This Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (1964) 7 SCR 1 = (AIR 1964 SC 1573) held that Section 43-A confers power on the State Government to issue orders and directions to the State Transport Authority only in relation to its administrative functions. The Court further held that in dealing with applications for permits and evaluating the respective claims of the parties, the Transport Authority discharges quasi-judicial functions and an order issued by the State Government giving directions to the Transport Authority in respect of a matter entrusted to it under the Act which has to be dealt with by it in exercise of its quasi-judicial authority is outside the purview of Section 43-A of the Act. The same principle applies in the present case. Exercise of the power to sanction the transfer of a permit under Section 59(1) is quasi-judicial, and the State Government is not competent to impose any restriction upon the exercise of that power by issuing executive instructions." It was argued that in the present case also the Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial and quasi-judicial powers cannot be controlled by any directions of any authority however high placed that authority be. 7. Similarly, applying the said observations to the facts of the present case, the directions of the Collector of Customs issued in the form of a Public Notice whereby the Commissioner is directed to make a claim for exemption by following only a particular procedure and correspondingly restricting the powers of the exempting authority to grant or not to grant exemption on the compliance or non-compliance only of such conditions, is fetter upon his quasi-judicial authority. They are not merely administrative directions but in effect restrict the right of exempting authority to decide on the facts of each case whether there has been or has not been pilferage of the goods as required by Section 13 of the said Act. The same principle applies to the fulfilment of conditions in Section 23 of the said Act. Under Section 23 an exemption is sought for under the Public Notice No. 22, dated 27th November 1964. Paragraph 2 sub-cl. (c)(iii) requires a certificate from the Bombay Port Trust stating the date, time and the circumstances in which the loss or destruction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er deciding that issue to determine whether exemption should be granted. I am quashing the Notice of demand pursuant to the letter dated 9th October 1969, only on the ground that the Respondents have taken into consideration the non-fulfilment of conditions to be complied with in accordance with the said Public Notice. 10. I, therefore, direct that the Respondents do consider the claim of the Petitioners in accordance with the demand for Rs. 99,524.69 ps. and do thereafter consider any exemption of duty in respect thereof made by the Petitioners on the imports of the goods and after ignoring the conditions mentioned in the Public Notice No. 22 dated 27th February 1964. 11. I am not deciding any other points raised in the Petition on the question of the procedure to be followed by the Respondents in accordance with the goods imported by the Petitioners nor am I deciding any other questions raised in the Petition as in my opinion, the Petitioners are entitled to reliefs on the ground that the Public Notice No. 22, dated 27th February 1964, is to the extent mentioned alone bad in law. The Petitioners are therefore not prevented from agitating the other questions raised in the Peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
