Back
1960 Supreme(AP) 168
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Gopikishen Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 07-26-60
A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to challenge an error of law or wrong interpretation of a statute by an administrative officer, as it does not amount to an error of jurisdiction. The existence of an adequate alternative remedy, such as the right of appeal and revision under the Sea Customs Act, bars the issuance of a writ of mandamus.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'MANDAMUS - SEA CUSTOMS ACT - INTERPRETATION - ADEQUATE REMEDY', 'SUBJECT': 'Writ of Mandamus - Interpretation of Sea Customs Act - Availability of Adequate Remedy', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['SEA CUSTOMS ACT, SECTION 29', 'SEA CUSTOMS ACT, SECTION 30', 'SEA CUSTOMS ACT, SECTION 39', 'SEA CUSTOMS ACT, SECTION 188', 'SEA CUSTOMS ACT, SECTION 191']}
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, leading exporters of manganese ore, entered into contracts with foreign companies agreeing to sell large quantities of manganese ore at a fixed price inclusive of all Indian taxes. The customs authorities provisionally assessed export duty based on the declared value of the ore. Several years later, the authorities issued a demand for additional duty, alleging that the customs duty paid was short-levied. Appellants challenged the legality of the demand, arguing that the real value of the ore should be determined under Section 30(a) of the Sea Customs Act, not Section 30(b), and that the customs authorities erred in relying on figures from the Indian Trade Journal. The High Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus, holding that the appellants had an effective and adequate remedy by way of appeal and revision under Sections 188 and 191 of the Sea Customs Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the determination of export duty under Section 30(a) or (b) was incidental to the effective exercise of the undisputed jurisdiction of the Customs Officer. Even if the officer had erroneously construed the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, it would amount only to an error of law and does not in any way touch his jurisdiction. Consequently, the proceedings culminating in the finalisation of the assessment are not amenable to mandamus jurisdiction. Further, the existence of an adequate remedy will exclude mandamus. The Sea Customs Act has conferred on the assessee the right of appeal to the Chief Customs authority against orders of the Subordinate authority and a right of revision to the Central Government.
Issues: ['Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the customs authorities from collecting additional duty after the lapse of 7 years.', 'Whether the real value of the ore shipped in 1951 should be determined according to the provisions of Section 30(a) of the Sea Customs Act and not Section 30(b) of that Act.', 'Whether the customs authorities should have relied upon the figures given in the Indian Trade Journal as they related to prices at export Calcutta.']
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to quash administrative orders, as they are not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature. 2. The assessment of export duty by customs authorities is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. 3. An error in the interpretation of a statute by an administrative officer does not amount to an error of jurisdiction and cannot be challenged through a writ of mandamus. 4. The existence of an adequate alternative remedy, such as the right of appeal and revision under the Sea Customs Act, bars the issuance of a writ of mandamus. 5. The requirement of depositing the demanded amount under Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act does not render the remedy of appeal or revision inadequate or ineffective.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld. The court declined to interfere with the interpretation of Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act, as the appellants had an undertaking from the Advocate-General that the Department would not raise the plea of limitation when an appeal is filed.
( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed against the judgment of Seshachalapathi J. in Writ Petitions Nos. 1210 and 1211 of 1958 declining to issue a writ oi mandamus to restrain the respondent from collecting the amount of the difference in duty in pursuance of the final assessment notice served upon the appellants with reference to the various con-cerns.
( 2 ) BOTH the appeals, though the parties are not the same, raise common questions and could therefore be dealt with in one judgment.
( 3 ) THE appellants are leading exporters of manganese ore to overseas buyers from Visakhapatnam. They entered into contracts with some foreign companies in 1950 agreeing to sell large quantities of manganese ore. The price fixed per ton of 2240 lbs. of dry weight manganese ore f. o. b. steamer, Visakhapatnam, India, was 20 dollars inclusive of all Indian taxes payable by the seller. The contracts contained a stipulation that this price was based upon the metallic manganese content of 46 per cent and for each 1 per cent content about 46 per cent, or below 46 per cent, down to 44 per cent. the price should be increased or decreased respectively by (0. 50) per ton (fractions) pro rata. The seller guaranteed that the ore contained metallic manganese minimum of 44 per cent when dried at 212 degrees. We are unconcerned herewith the other terms of the contract. The Appellant, after obtaining the requisite licence for the export of manganese ore through their agents produced before the customs authorities the shipping bills for certain quantities of manganese ore with 46 per cent manganese content. The value was declared to be Rs. 115 per ton. On this basis, the total cost of the manganese ore was calculated and ad valorem duty was levied provisionally representing customs duties at 15 per cent on the value of the ore to be exported. Before the duty was imposed, a letter was written to the Collector of Customs, Visakhapat-nam, by or on behalf of the appellants requesting the former to assess the export duty provisionally at 15 per cant ad valorem as per the circulars of the Government dated 25-9-1950. This request was complied with and the duty was provisionally fixed subject to finalisation. The provisional duty having been paid, fie goods were duly exported to the consignees in the United States.
( 4 ) A few years later i. e. , in 1958, the Customs authorities issued a demand under Sections 39 of the Sea Customs Act alleging that the customs duty paid on certain consignments of manganese was found to have been short levied and that the deficiency should be made up.
( 5 ) FOR the purpose of this enquiry, it is unnecessary to advert to the antecedent correspondence that passed between the appellants and the proper authorities. The appellants were told by a letter dated 28-8-1958 by the Collector of Customs that the assessments on the relevant shipments were finalised and it was found that the correct price prevailing at the time of the delivery of shipping bills at Visakhapatnam was Rs. 150 per ton ex-duty on the basis cf 48 per cent manganese content and adopting the declared manganese content of 46 per cent the correct assessable value worked out at a figure higher than that declared by the appellants and consequently a higher duty was leviable thereon. Credit was given to the sum already paid as provisional assessment and the balance stated to have been short levied was demanded to be paid.
( 6 ) THE shipping agents of the appellants questioned the validity and the propriety of the demand for additional duty after the lapse of 7 years. Despite this, the authorities insisted upon the payment of the difference between the provisional assessment and the final one. It is to challenge the legality of this demand on the basis of the finali-sation of the duty payable by the appellants that the jurisdiction, of this court tinder Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked.
( 7 ) ORIGINALLY, the reliefs asked for in all these petitions were the issuance
