Short levy demands under customs law require final ascertainment of liability and quantum before enforcement.

Demand notices for alleged short levy of customs duty were invalid where the customs authorities had not finally ascertained either the existence or the quantum of short levy. Section 39 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 required a demand founded on a completed determination that duty had not been levied, had been short-levied, or had been erroneously refunded. Notices issued while account examination remained pending, and framed as provisional demands inviting further explanation and proof, showed that no final satisfaction had been reached. Such anticipatory demands fell outside the statutory power and were unenforceable in writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether demand notices issued for alleged short levy of customs duty, before the customs authorities had finally ascertained the existence and quantum of short levy, were authorised by section 39 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and could be enforced.

Analysis: Section 39 contemplated recovery where customs duty had not been levied, had been short-levied, or had been erroneously refunded, and required a demand founded on an ascertainment of the duty payable. Notices issued while examination of accounts was still pending, and couched as provisional demands inviting representations and further proof, showed that the authorities had not yet reached a final satisfaction that any particular sum was recoverable as short levy. Such anticipatory demands were outside the scope of the provision and could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The demand notices for short levy were illegal and unenforceable, and the petitioner was entitled to relief in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for short levy of customs duty cannot be issued under section 39 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 unless the customs authorities have finally ascertained that duty was short-levied and the amount recoverable.

---