Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K.SUBBA RAO,MANOHAR PERSHAD, JJ.
Baroness Wilhelmine von Maltazan(German National)
Versus
Collector of Customs, Visakhapatnam
Writ Petition No. 671 of 1954
Decided On : 29-03-1957
SEA CUSTOMS ACT - SECTIONS 29, 30, 32, 39, 137 - INTERPRETATION - WHOLESALE CASH PRICE - REAL VALUE - PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT - REFUND - SHORT LEVY - CUSTOMS DUTIES - EXPORT OF MANGANESE ORE - ASSESSMENT OF DUTY - REFUND OF EXCESS DUTY - DEMAND FOR BALANCE AMOUNT - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the widow of Baron J. B. von Maltazan, challenged the demand of Rs. 4,875-10-0 made by the respondent authorities for the differential amount of customs duty on the export of manganese ore. The petitioner's husband had exported 8000 tons of manganese ore from Visakhapatnam port in October 1952, and paid a duty of Rs. 1,85,816. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 4,542-6-0 was refunded to him on account of short shipment of 195 tons. The respondent authorities, after analysis, determined that the actual manganese content was 45.3% instead of the declared 48%, resulting in an underpayment of duty. They demanded the differential amount of Rs. 4,875-10-0, which the petitioner contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's writ petition was maintainable, as the availability of alternative remedies under the Sea Customs Act did not disentitle her from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Sea Customs Act, including Sections 29, 30, 32, 39, and 137, to determine the real value of the goods, the procedure for assessment of duty, and the conditions for refund and short levy of duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of alternative remedies available under the Sea Customs Act? 2. Interpretation of Sections 29, 30, 32, 39, and 137 of the Sea Customs Act in relation to the assessment of duty, refund, and short levy. 3. Whether the demand for the differential amount of customs duty was justified?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the availability of alternative remedies under the Sea Customs Act does not automatically disentitle a petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court considered the specific circumstances of the case, including the onerous nature of the alternative remedies, in determining the maintainability of the petition. 2. The court interpreted Section 30 of the Sea Customs Act and held that the wholesale cash price referred to in Section 30(a) means the price at which goods of like kind and quality are sold or capable of being sold at the time and place of exportation, and not the cost price to the exporter. The court further held that Section 30(b) applies when the wholesale cash price is not ascertainable, and the real value is determined based on the cost at which goods of like kind and quality could be delivered without any abatement or deduction. 3. The court found that the demand for the differential amount of customs duty was justified as it was based on the final assessment of the real value of the exported manganese ore. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the provisional assessment was not justified under the Act, as it was made at the instance of the petitioner's husband and he had taken advantage of it.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that she had failed to make out a case under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court awarded costs of Rs. 200/- to the respondent.
MANOHAR PERSHAD, J. : -
This is a petition on behalf of Baroness Wilhelmine von Maltazan, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or writ directing the respondent to forbear from enforcing the demand contained in the letter, dated 30th August, 1954, or to prohibit the respondent from taking any steps to recover the amount.
2. The facts which give rise to this petition are that the petitioner is the widow of the late Baron J., B. von. Maltazan who died at Nagpur in an air crash on 12th December 1953. The late Baron J. B. von. Maltazan was carrying on business of exporting manganese ore for about 4 years before his death. After collecting and accumulating the quantity of manganese ore for over a year he exported about 8000 tons of manganese ore from the port of Visakhapatnam in October, 1952, having obtained the requisite export licence from Government of fndia. The shipments were made pursuant to and in fulfilment of the contracts made by him with Messrs. Continental Ore Corporation, New York, who were the consignees under the shipment. At the time the goods were delivered, to the customs authorities in Visakapatnam port, the shipping bills were shown and produced to the authorities by Messrs. Best and Co., Ltd., the agents of the consignor. On the value declared by the consignor a duty of Rs. 1,85,816 was demanded by the respondent-authority and was duly paid. Subsequently a sum of Rs. 4,542-6-0 was refunded to him on 25th March, 1953, on account of short shipment of 195 tons. In declaring the value for assessment of duty the late Baron estimated the mineral content at 48 per cent.
The ore according to practice and procedure was submitted to Messrs. Briggs and Co., Ltd., Calcutta, and on the analysis made by them the actual manganese content was ascertained to be 45.3 per cent. Thus it turned out that more than the duty properly chargeable had been paid by the late Baron. He, therefore, made an application on 23rd December, 1952, to the collector of Customs, Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, claiming a refund of Rs. 18,743-1-0. No orders seem to have been passed on that application and on 11th January, 1954, the Collector of Customs, Hyderabad, sent a letter stating that steps were being taken to finalise the assessment of manganese and that orders will be issued.
3. On 1st, October, 1952, two notices were served upon Messrs. Best and Co., Ltd., the agents of Baron (Petitioner) under section 39 of the Sea Customs Act of 1878 informing him that there was a short levy of duty to the tune of Rs. 9,317-11-0 and Rs. 27,845-8-0 and asking them to pay the same. On 3rd September, 1954, a letter was sent by the respondent to Messrs. Best and Co., Ltd., demanding from the petitioner the differential amount of Rs. 4,875-10-0 and stating that the assessment has been finalised and if the petitioner was aggrieved, she might prefer an appeal to the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi, after the payment of the amount demanded. The petitioner, gave a notice through a lawyer, dated 20th November, 1954, to the respondent asking for information as to the material, the grounds and other particulars on which the demand was made. The respondent gave a reply on 1st December 1954, stating that the value estimated is the one determined under section 30(b) of the Sea Customs Act, i.e., the value at which goods of the like kind and quality are capable of being delivered at the time and place of exportation. It is this demand of Rs. 4,875-10-0 which is challenged in this petition.
4. Sri Rama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has advanced various arguments. It is contended first that the levy and demand of Rs. 4,875-10-0 is illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, and not bona fide. The second contention is that it is not competent for the authorities to resort to section 30(b) of the Sea Customs Act when price was ascertainable under Section 30 (a). It is next contended
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
