TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a common question of law is involved in all these cases. Wherever reference to the facts is necessary, they may be taken from Civil Writ No. 2736 of 1984. 4.The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at Chandigarh. It is alleged in the petition that M/s Diogias Company Ltd. Bangkok (Thailand) through its Liaison Officer/Identor Mitsubishi Corporation, New Delhi, entered into a contract with the petitioner-company for the supply of 500 metric tonnes Acrylic Plastic Scrap (crushed) at the rate of U.S. $ 240 per metric ton vide indents annexures P.1 and P.2 to the writ petition; that Messrs Khanna Enterprises of Pinjore district Ambala obtained two import licences from the competent authority for the import of Acrylic Plastic Scrap (crushed) vide import licences, annexures P.3 and P.4; that the said M/s. Khanna Enterprises appointed the petitioner-company as their agent for the purpose of importing the above-mentioned commodity by means of two authority letters, Annexures P.5 and P.6; that the petitioner-company opened an irrevocable documentary credit for U.S. $ 61390 with the Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh, as per le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be the order of the said officer. 7.In regard to the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction, Surinder Singh, J. expressed the view in the following words : "The question as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions or not, cropped up for consideration during the course of arguments and as already observed, no such objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in this respect. Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the jurisdiction of this Court is not ousted merely because the office of respondent 2, whose order of assessment is challenged in these writ petitions, is located at Bombay. The learned Counsel has highlighted the following points to support his contention that the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petitions:- (a) Art. 226(2) of the Constitution provides that the power conferred by Cl. (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted a cause of action as a whole or in part, is situated outside its territorial limits. The person primarily affected by respondent issuing the notices from time to time to the petitioners and calling upon them to produce the accounts of their business carried on in the State of Tamil Nadu and again by proposing to assess them to the best of his judgment on the assumption of certain jurisdictional facts, is the addressee of such notice and such affection relates to the bundle of facts in the totality of the list or proceeding concerned, and such impact necessarily gives rise to a cause of action, though it may be in part." Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 3746 of 1984, Union of India v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., decided on Mar. 27, 1984 (reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 281 (S.C.) - AIR 1984 SC 1264): "Having regard to the fact that the registered office of the company is at Ludhiana and the principal respondents against whom the primary relief is sought are at New Delhi, one would have expected the writ petition to be filed either in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana or in the Delh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court to entertain this petition which is against the order of the provisional assessment under S. 18 of the Customs Act passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs. Though no grounds as such were stated in the petition to show how this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a petition against the impugned order admittedly passed by the Deputy Collector at Bombay, yet at the time of the arguments, it was urged that a part of cause of action having arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, this Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain this petition. In order to substantiate the contention that a part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, reliance was placed on the following facts : (i) that the order of the provisional assessment was served on the petitioner at Chandigarh; (ii) that the goods regarding which the custom duty has been imposed were to be delivered at Chandigarh; (iii) that the surety bond for the payment of the duty ultimately assessed was executed in favour of the assessing authority by the petitioner at Chandigarh; (iv) that the property of the petitioner liable to be sold in case of default is situated at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commodities had been cleared presumably at the value of $ 240 per metric ton. None of the facts constituting these grounds has any origin within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such no part of cause of action can be said to have possibly arisen within the said territory. The facts that the goods were to be taken to Chandigarh after taking delivery at Bombay; that the surety bond for the payment of the duty was executed by the petitioner at Chandigarh; that the property of the petitioner situated at Chandigarh was liable to be sold in case of default or that the registered office of the firm is situated at Chandigarh has no bearing whatsoever on the cause of action so far as the legality of the impugned order of the Deputy Collector is concerned. It is not necessary for me to discuss this matter any more in detail because it squarely stands covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petn. No. 2273 of 1982 (M/s. Vedsons Steels Wire P. Ltd. v. Bombay Port Trust, Bombay) decided on December 24, 1982 wherein the order passed by the Bombay Port Trust authorities was sought to be challenged and the petition was dismissed on the ground tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent of the agents of the petitioner and its copy delivered to them at Bombay. On that score also this case is of no help to the petitioner. In United Province Electric Supply Co. v. Industrial Tribunal (II), Allahabad, - (1974) 79 Cal. WN 312, the award of the Industrial Tribunal situated in Uttar Pradesh was under challenge and the petition was entertained on the ground that both the award and the notice for recovery were served on the petitioners at Calcutta. With utmost respect to the learned Judges, I again show my inability to subscribe to the view for the reasons recorded above. Service of the award and the notice for recovery cannot possibly constitute any part of the cause of action so far as challenge to the award is concerned. The award becomes effective not from its service but from the date on which it was made or if required to be published, from the date of its publication. Notice of recovery also would not be required to be proved for the challenge of the award. It is only in those cases where some order becomes effective only on its service on the person concerned that service of order can be said to give rise to a part of the cause of action at a place where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to entertain this petition. 11.As regards the merit of the impugned action of the Assistant Collector of Customs, it may be observed that none of the grounds on which the action has been impugned by the petitioner-company is of any avail to it. In order to assess the merits of the first ground, it would be first necessary to notice the relevant provisions of S. 18 of the Customs Act, which are in following terms : "18. Provisional assessment of duty. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but without prejudice to the provisions contained in S. 46 - (c) where the importer or the exporter has produced all the necessary documents and furnished full information for the assessment of duty but the proper officer deems it necessary to make further enquiry for assessing the duty; the proper officer may direct that the duty leviable on such goods may, pending the production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of such test or enquiry, be assessed provisionally if the importer or the exporter, as the case may be, furnishes such security, as the proper officer deems fit for the payment of the deficiency, if any, between the duty finally assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
