1960 Supreme(AP) 167

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, P.CHANDRA REDDY
Rai Sahib Seth Gopikishen Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 07-26-60

Mandamus cannot be sought to challenge an administrative order where the duty of the administrative officer is not plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command but depends upon a statute, the construction or application of which is not free from doubt.

Headnote:

SEA CUSTOMS ACT - EXPORT DUTY - ASSESSMENT - MANDAMUS - JURISDICTION - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ADEQUACY - DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT DEMANDED - LEGALITY - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - AVAILABILITY - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - ERRORS OF LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.

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 payable by the seller. The contracts contained a stipulation that the price was based on the metallic Manganese content and for each 1% content about 46% or below 46% down to 44% the price should be increased or decreased respectively by 0.50 per ton (fractions) pro rata. After obtaining the requisite license for the export of Manganese ore, appellants produced shipping bills for certain quantities of Manganese ore with 46% Manganese content. The value was declared to be Rs. 115 per ton. Ad valorem duty was levied provisionally representing customs duties at 15% on the value of the ore to be exported. A few years later, the Customs Authorities issued a demand under section 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. Appellants challenged the legality and propriety of this demand for additional duty after the lapse of seven years. The Customs Authorities insisted upon the payment of the difference between the provisional assessment and the final one. Appellants invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the demand.

Finding of the Court:

1. The task of determining the export duty is entrusted to the officers of customs appointed by the Central Government and section 30 prescribes the basis for the fixation of the real value. 2. Assessments made by the customs authorities cannot have the attribute of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, they being only administrative in character. 3. Mandamus cannot be sought in this case as the determination of the export duty according to clause (a) or clause (b) is incidental to the effective exercise of the undisputed jurisdiction of the Customs Officer. 4. Even if the Customs 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. 5. The existence of an adequate remedy will exclude mandamus. 6. 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. 7. The condition envisaged by section 189 of the Sea Customs Act would not render the remedy afforded by sections 188 and 191 of the Act an inadequate or ineffective remedy.

Issues: 1. Whether mandamus jurisdiction can be invoked to challenge the demand for additional duty after the lapse of seven years? 2. Whether the Customs Authorities can rely upon the figures given in the Indian Trade Journal as they related to prices at export Calcutta? 3. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy would disentitle the parties to maintain a petition when the parties are subjected to duties much higher than those contemplated by the relevant provisions of the Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A writ of certiorari could only issue to remove a judicial or quasi-judicial order and such a writ will not be available to quash administrative orders. 2. Assessments made by the customs authorities cannot have the attribute of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding, they being only administrative in character. 3. A writ of mandamus is issued to a public officer to enforce the performance of a duty. It is usually connected with the administration of statutes and is employed when a public officer refuses to exert a ministerial duty. 4. If the act done is plainly and palpably wrong, as a matter of law, then only the mandamus jurisdiction will be exercised. 5. This jurisdiction will not be used to direct an officer to exercise his judgment in a particular manner. 6. The obligation to be performed must be manifest on the face of the statute and should not give room for doubt as to the meaning thereof. 7. Questions of law, the solution of which require the construction of an Act, cannot form a ground for the issue of a writ of mandamus that is to say, mere errors of law or wrong interpretation of a statute cannot entitle a party to invoke mandamus jurisdiction. 8. A writ of mandamus does not lie where it is a wrong application of a provision of law to a set of facts. 9. The determination of the export duty according to clause (a) or clause (b) is incidental to the effective exercise of the undisputed jurisdiction of the Customs Officer. 10. Even if he 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. 11. Consequently, the proceedings culminating in the finalisation of the assessment are not amenable to mandamus jurisdiction. 12. The existence of an adequate remedy will exclude mandamus. 13. 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. 14. The condition envisaged by section 189 of the Sea Customs Act would not render the remedy afforded by sections 188 and 191 of the Act an inadequate or ineffective remedy.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed with costs.