TMI Blog1961 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abovenamed, the necessary documents, namely, Bill of Lading, Invoice and the Bill of Entry, wherein the real value quantity and description of the goods were stated along with a declaration that the statements contained in the Bill of Entry were correct. The total value of the goods imported was shown as Rs. 22,893.73 nP. 3.On or about 12/13 February, 1960 a notice was served on the petitioner that the correct c.i.f. value of the goods should be 24 sh. per yard c.i.f. and the petitioner was asked to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated and a penalty should not be imposed. On 18 February, 1960 the petitioner asked the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraisement, to be informed on what basis the examination had been conducted by the respondent to arrive at 24 sh. price per yard and further stated that on receipt of the information the petitioner would reply to the notice of the Customs authorities. On 20 February, 1960 the petitioner further informed the Assistant Collector of Customs, appraisement that the petitioner desired to be heard in person. 4.On March 14, 1960 a further notice was served on the petitioner wherein it was alleged that on further enquiry it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner. 7.Counsel for the Customs authorities contended that the order was one in assessment and was, therefore, not justiciable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on the decision in the Glaxo Laboratories case reported in A.I.R. 1959 Bombay, 372 support of that contention. A recent decision of the Andhra High Court reported in AIR 1961 Andhra 170 — Gopi Kissen Agarwal Anr. v. Collector of Customs was also relied upon by the counsel for the customs authorities in support of the contentions that the assessment made by the Customs authorities cannot have the attribute of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and they are administrative in character and that mere errors of law or wrong interpretation of a statute cannot entitle a party to invoke a writ of Mandamus. In the Andhra case it was held that the determination of the export duty according to sub-section (a) or sub-section (b) of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act was incidental to the effective exercise of the undisputed jurisdiction of the Customs officer and if he erroneously constituted the provision of section 30 it would amount to error of law and would not touch his jurisdiction. The question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1959. The cable document No. d. referred to in dated Feb. 4, 1959. It is clear that an indent placed for the first time in the month of May 1959 could not be referred to in a telegram dated three months earlier. On discovery of this palpably incorrect statement the Customs authority did not longer rely on the advice No. 4260 dated May 22, 1959. The Customs authorities relied on the letter dated December 24, 1959 from Messrs. T. S. Narang written to the Collector and second letter dated February 6, 1960 from the same person to the same authorities. These two letters will appear at pages 6 and 7 of the annexures to the petition. The letter dated December 24, 1959 written by T. S. Narang to the Assistant Collector of Customs states that "As per your enquiry we hereby state that the correct c.i.f. values of Woollen Fabrics of our undermentioned qualities during the year 1959 have been as follows —"After that statement the qualities 2/800, 2/1400 and 2/236 are shown with the price 29s. 6d. per yard. The letter dated February 6 is also written by T. S. Narang to the Assistant Collector of Customs and is worded as follows:— "With reference to our letter dated 24th December 1959 the corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their contention that since the writer of the letters states that 29s. 6d. is the correct c.i.f. value per yard and further that is the lowest c.i.f. value during the year 1959, the petitioner must have purchased at that rate. 13.Counsel for the petitioner, in my view, rightly contended that there was nothing to show even in these two letters as to what was the price in the particular months in which the petitioner had the transaction and whether those were the prices at Bombay or at Calcutta. The country of origin is not mentioned. It is indisputable that c.i.f. price is bound to be different at different places of arrival. The Customs authorities relying entirely on the documents marked B and C referred to above held that there is no reason to discard them and further held that the question of actual importation in terms of prices indicated in the letter dated December 24, 1959 is immaterial. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Customs authorities should for the petitioner contended that the Customs authorities should first have asked the petitioner produce documents to ascertain the real value before giving any notice regarding penalty, etc. There is good deal of sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of merchants in Bombay with a Branch in Calcutta and another branch in Osaka imported Japanese goods into India for sale in the Indian market. 16.Patel was the Manager of the Calcutta Branch. The Osaka Branch was kept in funds by the Bombay head-office and by the branch in Calcutta. In the year 1959 the Osaka branch entered into forward contracts with Japanese firms for the supply of articles like tin whitles, glassbeads, glass mirrors for shipment to Calcutta and informed the Calcutta office of the purchase and the prices at which the purchases had been made. Subsequently, the Japanese manufacturers intimated to the Osaka Branch that they could not supply the goods at the prices agreed upon and that the prices would be increased. The Osaka branch reported this fact to the Calcutta branch and the Bombay office in reply agreed to pay the enhanced price. Thereupon the increase in price was paid to the manufacturers in Japan by the Osaka branch and debited to the account of the Calcutta branch. A debit note was sent to the Calcutta branch for this account. When the goods were shipped from Japan invoices were sent from the Osaka branch to the Calcutta branch in which the original p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also held that the mere fact that the importer paid a particular price is for a particular goods is not sufficient to prove that the price the real value for the purpose of section 30(b) of the Sea Customs Act. Counsel for the Customs Authorities contended that the decision in the Legal remembrancer's case was not applicable here in view of the fact that the ratio of the decision is that the prosecution there had to prove that section 30(b) applied. I am unable to accept that contention as the ratio of the case or as the distinguishing feature. It is in my opinion clear on the authority of the decision in the case referred to above that the rule of construction of the Sea Customs Act is that the provisions of section 30(b) do not apply until and unless the wholesale cash price etc., as contemplated in section 30(a) is not ascertainable. 19.Exts. B and C (the two letters written, by Narang) on which the Customs Authorities relied to arrive at the ascertainment of the real value in the present case suffer in my opinion from various infirmities. First, the letters marked B and C do not show as to whether there was any import pursuant to the quotation mentioned there. Secondly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stage of appeal under the Act assumes a quasi-judicial character. If there is no evidence at all that is a ground on which certiorari will lie. 20.It is true that correctness of the decision not open to review but if there is no evidence at all that is liable to be reviewed by way of certiorari. In the present case I am of opinion that the documents marked Exts. B and C on which the Customs Authorities relied are no evidence to support the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs. There is no finding that price contemplated under sub-section (a) of section 30 is not ascertainable. In the absence of such finding provisions in sub-section (b) are not attracted. Further more, under sub-section (b) cost at which goods of like kind and quality could be delivered at such place are to be found. The impugned order states that importation is not material. It is the imported price that has to be found out under sub-section (b). The order is therefore made in violation of the provisions, first because there is no finding that price under section 30(a) is not ascertainable, secondly, because section 30(b) is not attracted without complying with section 30(a), and thirdly because the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and that the Deputy Collector of Customs passed the order without hearing the petitioner. It was said that the order of the Deputy Collector was quasi-judicial and there was obligation to the Deputy Collector to act judicially and he was bound to hear the petitioner but it was held that no duty was cast upon the Deputy Collector by any reason or law or rules of procedure to hear the petitioner orally and that so long the Deputy Collector was in possession of the records which contained the defence of the petitioner it was taken that the Deputy Collector heard the petitioner before he passed the order. Thus counsel for the Customs Authorities contended that the Deputy Collector of Customs in the present case possessed the entire records which contained the representation of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner was heard. In the recent decision of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Anr. - 1959 Supplement 1 S.C.R. 319 it has been held as appears at P. 357 of the report that if one person hears and another person decides, as the Rules themselves envisaged in that case, such a procedure defeated the object of personal hearing. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
