Civil court jurisdiction over customs duty refunds is excluded where the Sea Customs Act provides a complete remedial scheme.

The Sea Customs Act operated as a complete code for levy, assessment, refund, appeal and revision of customs duty, so a civil suit to recover duty said to have been wrongly collected was barred by necessary implication. Because the statute created the liability and provided a full remedial scheme, a claimant could not bypass the statutory appeal and revision process by suing directly for refund merely because no appeal was filed. Civil court jurisdiction remained available only where the customs authority acted without jurisdiction, in breach of fundamental judicial procedure, mala fide, or under an unconstitutional statute.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit was maintainable to recover customs duty said to have been wrongly levied and collected under the Sea Customs Act, and whether the statutory remedies under the Act excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court.

Analysis: The Sea Customs Act was treated as a complete code governing levy, assessment, refund, appeal and revision in matters of customs duty. Section 188 provided an appeal against decisions or orders of customs officers and declared the appellate order final, subject to revision under Section 191. The decision held that when a statute creates the liability and provides a complete machinery for redress, the civil court's jurisdiction is excluded by clear implication, and a party cannot bypass the statutory scheme by directly suing for refund merely because an appeal was not pursued. At the same time, it was recognised that civil courts may still entertain cases where the customs authority acts without jurisdiction, in breach of fundamental judicial procedure, mala fide, or under an unconstitutional statute.

Conclusion: The civil suit was not maintainable, because the jurisdiction of the civil court to challenge the customs levy was excluded by the statute.

Final Conclusion: The statutory appellate and revisional mechanism under the Sea Customs Act barred a direct civil action for recovery of customs duty, though constitutional or jurisdictional challenges remained outside that bar.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a liability and furnishes a complete remedial machinery for challenging its erroneous enforcement, civil court jurisdiction is excluded by necessary implication, except in cases of lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental procedure, mala fides, or unconstitutionality.

---