Back
LORD THANKERTON, SIR GEORGE RANKIN, M.R.JAYAKAR
SECRETARY OF STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF SOUTH ARCOT – Appellant
Versus
MASK AND COMPANY – Respondent
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the civil courts' jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging customs decisions is excluded when there is an express statutory provision establishing a comprehensive and self-contained appellate and revision process. Specifically, when the statute provides a clear and final appellate procedure that covers the determination of the rights and obligations involved, the courts are barred from intervening in the merits of such disputes. The key consideration is whether the statutory scheme explicitly or by clear implication excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts; in this case, the court held that the provisions of the relevant customs act, which include appeals and revisions that are final and binding, effectively ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts to review the substantive merits of customs assessments and decisions. Therefore, the finality clause within the statutory framework signifies that parties must adhere to the prescribed statutory remedies, and resorting to civil courts for adjudication of the same issues is barred.
Judgement
Appeal (No. 23 of 1939) from a judgment and order of the High Court (February 2, 1938), which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore (March 30, 1937).
The respondents, Mask & Co., a firm of merchants, imported a quantity of betel-nuts into British India. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed them for the purposes of duty on a tariff value as " boiled". The respondents, contending that they were raw sliced betel-nuts subject to duty ad valorem, appealed from the decision of the Assistant Collector to the Collector of Customs, who dismissed the appeal, and on the matter being taken in revision to the Government of India the Collectors decision was affirmed.
In the suit out of which this appeal arose the respondents sought to recover the excess amount collected from them, under protest, by levying duty upon a tariff and not an ad valorem basis. The main question for determination in the appeal was whether the order passed by the Collector of Customs on the appeal under the provisions of s. 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, against the assessment of duty by the officer of Customs, and which was subsequently affirmed on revision under the provisions of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
