TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not less than Rs. 3500/- from payment of customs duties. Earlier the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, had by a resolution dated 4th December, 1962 constituted a committee for registration of export contracts in respect of jute goods to facilitate shipments and to remove or obviate considerable inconvenience experienced by shippers of Indian exporters of jute specialities on account of disputes or questions raised by the customs authorities regarding F.O.B. price or the real values of jute goods entered in the shipping bills. Under the scheme shippers could volunteer to register sale contracts after scrutiny by the committee for registration of export contracts. The Committee for registration was to consist of a representative of the Reserve Bank of India an Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta and a representative of the Jute Commissioner, Calcutta as members. Production of registration certificate with other shipping documents before customs authorities was to be accepted by the latter as constituting sufficient proof of the contract price and related financial items. Relying on the said provisions the petitioner company entered into contracts with R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, in this case there was no bar in law to issue notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The question whether the goods might be confiscated or penalty might be imposed or whether the goods were dutiable or exports goods could be decided by the department. The Company was only asked to show cause. It might be that after hearing the company the customs authorities would agree with their views. In this connection he referred to the cases of Pilani Investment Corporation Ltd. v. I.T.O., (1968) 69 ITR 847 (Cal.) and Rampyari Debi Sarogi v. Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal, (1968) 67 ITR 84 (S.C.). The learned Advocate-General contended that issue of notice was not a violation of the provisions of a statute. There was no bar to the issuance of the notice and therefore the notice could not be quashed. It was not a case, according to him, where the notices were ex facie bad with regard to question of assessment etc., the customs authorities were the sole judges with exclusive jurisdiction under the statute. The Court will not interfere in its writ jurisdiction in such a case. He referred to the case of Colonial Bank of Australia v. William, reported in (1873) 5 PC 417 and N. Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case that the goods are prohibited ones. There is no allegation in the show cause notices that any duty was sought to be evaded. There is, in fact, no column for F.A.S. value in the declaration form nor is there any declaration in respect of the same on the shipping bill. It is also well settled that no authority much less a quasi-judicial authority can confer jurisdiction on itself by deciding the jurisdictional fact wrongly. In this case by merely alleging in the show cause notices that there was mis-declaration of the goods or that the goods were dutiable or that they were export goods the customs authority could not confer jurisdiction on itself by a wrong decision as to jurisdictional fact. Reference may be made in this connection to the case of Raza Textiles Limited v. The Income-tax Officer, reported in AIR 1973 S.C. 1362 = (1973 Tax L.R. 684). Moreover there seems to be substance also in the contention that the notices concerned did not say that the contract price was different from what is stated in the shipping bill. Therefore, on reading the said notices it is manifest, even on the assumption that the facts alleged or allegations made therein are true, none of the cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market price under Section 2(30) is the wholesale price of the goods in India but the price declared was of contract executed with a foreign buyer. Mr. Deb, therefore, was on strong grounds when he urged that there is no material in the particulars as to valuation in the impugned notices to make out any case of mis-declaration. He also argued with some force that even assuming that Section 14 of the Customs Act which refers to valuation of goods for purposes for assessment is to be applied in the present case the Customs authorities have made calculations on the basis of "market price" in India [See Section 2(30)] that is, domestic transaction but Section 14(1) mentions "in the course of international trade". Section 2(41) of the Customs Act states that value in relation to any goods means the value thereof determined in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14. The said definition of value is to be applied only if it is applicable in the context. Section 14(1) seems to apply in cases where goods are chargeable, to duty with reference to value. Value as defined in Section 2(41) is, therefore, not a general definition but is a limited one, the scope being conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not take away the jurisdiction of the authorities. If they have the power or jurisdiction otherwise, mere mention of a wrong section will not take away the same. He also relied on a decision of this Court in Matter No. 8 of 1968 (Cal.), The Assistant Collector of Customs v. Acharyya Brothers. 9.On this question Mr. Deb's contention was that the same has no validity because it was executed under compulsion. As the petitioner company had to fulfil its obligation to the foreign buyers and as the Customs Authorities would not allow them to execute the contracts otherwise, it was forced to execute the bond. Consent alone could not confer jurisdiction when the customs authorities had no jurisdiction under the statute, that is, either under Section 113(i) or Section 114 of the Customs Act. Referring to Section 15 of the Indian Contract Act it was contended that unlawfully detaining any property to the prejudice of a person and with the intention of causing any person to enter into contract would vitiate the latter. Again adjudication mentioned in the bond referred to pending proceedings. The said bond was executed on the 10th of March, 1969. It referred to fine and penalty as may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
