Article 32 challenge to customs confiscation failed where authorities acted within jurisdiction and only the saving clause was disputed.

Quasi-judicial customs confiscation and penalty orders passed under an intra vires fiscal regime were held not amenable to challenge under Article 32 merely because the authorities allegedly misconstrued paragraph 6 of S.R.O. 3315. Applying Ujjambai, the Court held that an erroneous construction by an authority acting within jurisdiction does not, by itself, amount to a breach of fundamental rights; the remedy is unavailable unless there is an absence of jurisdiction or a challenge to vires. The majority found the customs authorities had jurisdiction under the Sea Customs Act as extended to Pondicherry, so the petition failed. A dissent would have treated the authorities as lacking jurisdiction on the assumed facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs confiscation and penalty orders, made by a competent quasi-judicial authority under an intra vires fiscal regime but alleged to rest on a misconstruction of paragraph 6 of S.R.O. 3315, could be challenged in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The majority held that the impugned orders were passed by authorities having inherent jurisdiction under the Sea Customs Act as extended to Pondicherry by S.R.O. 3315. The challenge was not to the vires of the statute or the order, but only to the construction placed on the saving clause in paragraph 6. Applying the rule laid down in Ujjambai, a mere erroneous construction of an intra vires provision by a quasi-judicial authority acting within jurisdiction does not, by itself, create a breach of fundamental rights or make the order amenable to challenge under Article 32. The majority further held that the case did not fall within the narrow exception of absence of jurisdiction, because the customs authorities had jurisdiction to decide the matter and the grievance was only about the legal effect of the saving clause.

Conclusion: The petition under Article 32 was not maintainable and the confiscation and penalty orders could not be quashed in these proceedings.

Dissenting Opinion: Das Gupta J. took the view that, on the assumed facts, the Sea Customs Act would not apply to imports made pursuant to contracts concluded before 1 November 1954, and therefore the customs authorities would have acted without jurisdiction. On that approach, Article 32 would have been available.

---