Customs valuation and certiorari limits: objections must appear on the record, and import-time value governs assessment.

Certiorari relief was described as unavailable on grounds not raised before the customs authority, and alleged valuation errors that are not apparent on the face of the record cannot be examined. Real value under customs law was stated to depend on the wholesale cash price at the time and place of importation, so the contract date was not treated as the valuation date merely because shipment was delayed. Confiscation was treated as limited to the excess value beyond the licence, not the entire consignment, and unequal treatment was not established without reliable comparison material. A second show-cause notice was held permissible where it merely corrected errors in the first notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ of certiorari could be maintained on grounds not taken before the customs authority and whether any error of law apparent on the face of the proceedings existed in the valuation; (ii) whether the "real value" under Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act had to be determined with reference to the date of contract or a later point of importation; (iii) whether the confiscation was illegal because it was said to extend to the whole consignment and whether the valuation involved unequal treatment; and (iv) whether a second show-cause notice was impermissible after a reply to the first notice.

Issue (i): whether the writ of certiorari could be maintained on grounds not taken before the customs authority and whether any error of law apparent on the face of the proceedings existed in the valuation.

Analysis: A party cannot ordinarily be permitted to challenge an administrative or quasi-judicial order in certiorari on grounds not urged before the authority of first instance. The objection that the valuation was arbitrary or that the statutory ingredients of Section 30 were not followed could not be sustained when those matters did not appear on the face of the order and would require examination of materials beyond the record.

Conclusion: The objection failed and no error apparent on the face of the proceedings was shown.

Issue (ii): whether the "real value" under Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act had to be determined with reference to the date of contract or a later point of importation.

Analysis: Section 30 fixes real value by reference to the wholesale cash price of goods of like kind and quality at the time and place of importation. The relevant time cannot be pushed back to the date of contract merely because shipment was delayed by the supplier. On the facts, shipment was treated as the earliest reasonable point for valuation, and the date of unloading was not accepted as the operative date.

Conclusion: The valuation based on the date of shipment was upheld and the claim to use the contract date was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether the confiscation was illegal because it was said to extend to the whole consignment and whether the valuation involved unequal treatment.

Analysis: The confiscation was understood to relate only to the excess value not covered by the licence, not to the entire goods. The allegation of unequal treatment was unsupported because no reliable material showed identity of quality between the consignments compared, and no legal basis for constitutional discrimination was established.

Conclusion: Both objections were rejected.

Issue (iv): whether a second show-cause notice was impermissible after a reply to the first notice.

Analysis: The second notice corrected mistakes in the first notice, including erroneous figures and units. There is no rule preventing a fresh notice where the earlier notice contained correctable errors and no completed adjudication had been shown to bar further action.

Conclusion: The second show-cause notice was held to be permissible.

Final Conclusion: The customs order of valuation and partial confiscation was sustained, and the writ application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In certiorari, relief will not be granted on grounds not raised before the authority below or where the alleged error is not apparent on the face of the record, and valuation under the customs law is to be determined with reference to a reasonable time at importation rather than the date of contract.

---