1939 (7) TMI 7 - HC - Customs

Court lacks jurisdiction over revenue collection matter under Sea Customs Act

The Court dismissed the application, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter related to revenue collection. It found that the Customs ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Court2. Statutory duty of Customs Authorities3. Relief under Section 45, Specific Relief ActDetailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Court:The first issue addressed is whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court examined Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act, which states that High Courts cannot exercise original jurisdiction in matters concerning revenue or acts done for the collection of revenue according to the law in force. The Court referred to various decisions, including the Judicial Committee's ruling in Alcock Ashdown & Co. Ltd. v. The Chief Revenue Authority, which held that certain actions by Revenue Authorities do not fall within the prohibition. However, in this case, the Court concluded that the actions of the Customs Authorities were within the scope of 'revenue' or the collection of revenue, thus barring the Court from exercising jurisdiction.2. Statutory Duty of Customs Authorities:The second issue revolves around whether the Customs Authorities failed to perform a statutory duty under the Sea Customs Act. The applicant argued that the Customs Authorities were obligated to proceed under Section 32 of the Sea Customs Act, which deals with the procedure for assessing the value of goods. The Customs Authorities, however, argued that they were entitled to assess, levy, and detain the goods under Section 87 of the Act, irrespective of Section 32. The Court examined the Act and noted that Sections 30, 31, and 32 provide the actual machinery for appraisement and assessment, while Section 87 provides a general enabling power to assess. The Court found that the Customs Authorities' action of penal assessment by merely increasing the value by 50% was not warranted by any provision of the Act. The Court concluded that if the goods were ad valorem, the Customs Authorities should have proceeded under Sections 30 and 32, and if they were tariff value goods, the assessment should have been under the general powers.3. Relief under Section 45, Specific Relief Act:The third issue was whether relief under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act should be granted, assuming the Court had jurisdiction. The Court noted that the applicant had not exhausted his remedies under Sections 188 and 191 of the Sea Customs Act, which provide for an appeal process. The Court emphasized that it does not interfere by way of mandamus until the right of appeal is exhausted. Consequently, the application failed on this point of law.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the application with costs, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter concerning revenue collection and that the applicant had not exhausted available remedies under the Sea Customs Act. The judgment also highlighted the distinction between 'tariff value goods' and 'ad valorem goods,' noting that different procedures apply to these classes of goods under the Act.