J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) A. V. Narasimhalu-hereinafter called "the plaintiff"- imported 43 reels of newsprint 13" width) under a Bill of Entry, dated July 15/07/1954. The width of the newsprint being less than 15" no import duty was payable under the Open General Licence. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the, commodity imported fell within item 44 of the Customs Tariff and levied a duty of 331% ad valorem. The plaintiff paid the duty under protest, and applied for refund of the duty relying upon a decision of the High court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 402 of 1954, in which it was decided that newsprint of width less then 15" was exempt from duty. This application was rejected. An appeal to the Collector of Customs and a revision application to the central Board of Revenue were unsuccessful. The customs authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the claim not having been made within three months of the date of demand was barred under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

(2) THE plaintiff then instituted an action in the City Civil court for a decree for Rs. 2,669.62 against the Union of India. The trial court decreed the claim holding that the claim was not barred. In appeal the Principal Judge, City Civil court held that the City Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In so holding-he relied upon the judgment of the Judicial Committee in secretary of State for India v. Mask &Co. In Second Appeal, the High court of Madras reversed the judgment of the Principal Judge, City Civil court, and restored the decree passed by the trial court. The Union of India has appealed to this court with special leave.

(3) IT is unnecessary to consider whether the claim is barred under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act, for, in our judgment, the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, insofar as it is relevant, provides :

"ANY person deeming himself aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an officer of Customs under this Act may, within three months from the date of such decision or order, appeal therefrom to the Chief Customs Authority) or in such cases as the central government directs, to any officer of Customs not inferior in rank to a Customs Collector and empowered in that behalf by name or in virtue of his office by the central government.

X X X X

EVERY order passed in appeal under this section shall; subject "o the power of revision conferred by Section 191, be final."

Section 191 provides:

"THE central government may, on the application of any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by any officer of Customs or Chief Customs Authority, and from which no appeal lies, reverse or modify such decision or order."

The Act is a complete code dealing with liability to pay customs duty and for obtaining relief against excessive or erroneous levy and other related matters. The jurisdiction of the Civil court to entertain a suit on the ground that the duty was .improperly or illegally levied is excluded. It is true that the decision or order, passed under Section 188 in appeal to the appellate authority is expressly declared final. But on that account it cannot be held that by refusing to appeal against the decision or by refusing to claim relief in the manner provided by Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act and Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act, a party aggrieved by the order of a Customs Officer may nvest the Civil court with jurisdiction to entertain a suit.

(4) IN Mask & Companys case (supra) a firm of merchants imported a quantity of betel-nuts int6 British India. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed them for the purposes of duty on a tariff as "boiled", rejecting the contention of the importers, that they were "raw aliced betel-nuts" subject to duty ad valorem. The importers appealed from the decision of the Assistant Collector to the Collector of Customs. The appeal was dismissed,