TMI Blog1957 (9) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng bills for assessment of export duty and they paid the same which was for that month 6 annas per lb. s. s. Dara which was expected to arrive on the 30th of September 1955 arrived, as I stated above, on the 1st October, 1955 and the duty leviable as from the 1st of October for export of tea was eight annas per pound. Thereupon on the 25th of October the respondents issued a notice, which is annexed as Ex. A. to the petition, calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 1,875 within 15 days such demand was made. According to the petitioners they contended that they were not liable to pay the deficiency and appealed to the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Assistant Collector of Customs rejected their appeal on the 30th January 1956 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of tenacity, because it is admittedly a test petition on behalf of one of the members of the Tea Traders' Association. 4.When the Advocate General indicated to me the nature of the appeal, Mr. Khambata on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as a matter of fact the petitioners were complaining against an order enforcing the original order of the Collector, because on the 22nd February 1957 a letter was addressed to the petitioners by the Assistant Collector of Customs stating that they had failed to pay duty amounting to Rs. 1,875/- and further goods imported or exported on their behalf and passing through the Customs House should be detained under the provisions of section 39 of the Sea Customs Act. It is contended that they have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 18th of January 1957 when they wrote the letter which is annexed as Ex. E. to the petition. To my mind it is entirely fallacious to say that this is an appeal under section 191 challenging the decisions of the Central Board and of the Collector. There is no challenge to the order made. All that the letter says is that on account of a certain misfortune and no default of the importers who were exporting tea these goods arrived by s.s. DARA one day late and these merchants had been called upon to pay excess duty amounting to Rs. 50,000. Thereafter it is pointed out that the tea trade of Ceylon was competing hard with the tea trade of India and that tea trade of India was losing ground in the Asiatic countries to the West of India. But the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to paragraph 13 of the petition in which a submission is made that the action of the respondents in imposing and demanding and attempting to recover from the petitioners the additional export duty of Rs. 1,875/- is void, illegal without jurisdiction and authority and not warranted by provisions of section 39 of the Sea Customs Act and that the respondents have no jurisdiction or competence to detain these goods. I was also referred to the prayer where it says that the respondents be restrained from recovering the additional export duty of Rs. 1,875/- or from detaining the petitioners' goods as per their order dated the 22nd February 1957. Now, this argument would appear on the face of it to be fallacious, because their grievance is the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n prayer (a) a relief is asked both against imposition of duty and against the order of enforcement in a rolled up plea. But that does not in my opinion make any difference to the position. 7.A further point has been taken by Mr. Seervai relying upon the decision in Gandhinagar Motor Transport Society v. State of Bombay reported in 55 B.L.R at page 922 where at page 923 the learned Chief Justice observed : "The main ground on which the order of the Government is challenged is that Government had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the State Transport Authority and that the decision given by the State Transport Authority was the final order which became conclusive and no appeal lay from that order. The petitioners never r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 1305 of 1957. The learned Judges quoted this portion of the judgment of the High Court and observed that that was a principle which had to be applied broadly and not limited in the manner asked for by Mr. Khambata and they quoted from the judgment of Rex v. Williams (1914) I.K.D. 608 where Mr. Justice Channell pointed out as follows :- "A party may by his conduct preclude himself from claiming the writ ex debito justice, no matter whether the proceedings which he seeks to quash are void or voidable. If they are void, it is true no conduct of his will validate them; but such considerations do not affect the principles on which the court acts in granting or refusing the writ of certiorari. This special remedy will not be granted ex deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
