Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Desai K.K. , J.
Appellants: Humayun Abdullali
Vs.
Respondent: M.G. Abrol and Anr.
Misc. Appln. No. 472 of 1958
Decided On: 11.03.1959
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V. Rajgopal and M.H. Thakkar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Chinoy and Sorabjee, Advs.
SEA CUSTOMS ACT - EXPORT OF WOOL - MISDECLARATION OF GOODS - PENALTY - JURISDICTION - NATURAL JUSTICE - APPEAL - MERGER OF ORDERS - WRIT PETITION - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - [SECTION 167(8), 167(37), 188, 191].
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an exporter, attempted to export goods described as "wool waste" without a license and without grading, which was required for "raw wool" under Chapter IV of the Sea Customs Act. The Customs authorities, after receiving an opinion from the Marketing Adviser to the Government of India that the goods were not wool waste but raw wool, imposed a penalty on the petitioner under Section 167(8) of the Act. The petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Revenue, which upheld the penalty. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court, challenging the orders of the Customs authorities and the Central Board of Revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 167(8) of the Act by attempting to export raw wool without a license and without grading. The Court also held that the petitioner had not been denied natural justice, as he had been given an opportunity to be heard before the Central Board of Revenue, which had considered all his grievances, including the grievance that he had not been given a hearing before the Customs authorities after the opinion of the Marketing Adviser was received. The Court further held that the order of the Customs authorities merged in the decision of the Central Board of Revenue, which was the final order in the case. The Court also held that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue, as the rule nisi had not been issued against the Board.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act by attempting to export raw wool without a license and without grading? 2. Whether the petitioner had been denied natural justice? 3. Whether the order of the Customs authorities merged in the decision of the Central Board of Revenue? 4. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 167(8) of the Act by attempting to export raw wool without a license and without grading, as the goods were found to be raw wool and not wool waste, and the export of raw wool was restricted under Chapter IV of the Act. 2. The Court held that the petitioner had not been denied natural justice, as he had been given an opportunity to be heard before the Central Board of Revenue, which had considered all his grievances, including the grievance that he had not been given a hearing before the Customs authorities after the opinion of the Marketing Adviser was received. 3. The Court held that the order of the Customs authorities merged in the decision of the Central Board of Revenue, which was the final order in the case, as the appeal to the Central Board of Revenue opened up the whole subject matter of inquiry and the Board had the power to confirm, alter, or annul the decision of the Customs authorities. 4. The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Central Board of Revenue, as the rule nisi had not been issued against the Board.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
(2) In 1955 the petitioner received an inquiry from some foreign customer for export and sale from India for coarse white goat-hair or wool. The petitioner had in that connection sent his inaterial which is described as petitioners type 100AA to that foreign customer. The petitioner was in doubt as to whether he could export his goods as wool waste which did not require export licence or only as raw wool which required export licence. In that connection the petitioners representative interviewed the Deputy Marketing Development Officer in Bombay with a sample: but the officer refused to give any opinion intimating to the petitioner that it was not his function to give opinions to the petitioner.
(3) The petitioner thereafter in 1956 shipped 25 bales of his goods outside India in the end of January 1956. The petitioner further shipped 10 bales of his goods outside India in May 1956. On 15-10-1956 the petitioner submitted his shipping bill No. 2402 in connection with 15 bales mentioned in the petition. These bales were described in the shipping bills as 6534 Lbs. of Indian wool waste of the value of Rs. 11,000/- to be shipped by S. S .Aagtedijk. In connection with these goods of the petitioner there being doubt as to whether it was waste woo, the Customs appeared to have taken opinion of the senior Marketing Development Officer, Wool Bristles and Goat Hair Grading Scheme, Bombay. The opinion of the officer was that the petitioners goods were not waste wool. By a show cause notice dated October 22nd, 1956 the Assistant Collector of Customs gave notice to the petitioner that the shipping bill contained a miseclaration of the description of the goods and involved an attempt to evade restriction export of the articles in question. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against the petitioner he was informed that his goods were examined by the Officer mentioned above and were found to be "not wool waste." He was also informed that the goods were "Indian Wool Raw" and that they could not be allowed to be exported without a grading certificate from the competent authorities and without the endorsement from the Export Trade Control Authorities for having licensed the goods as "Indian Wool Raw." As to the fact that there existed as regards wool the aforesaid restrictions on export requiring "grading" of the goods and "an Export Trade Control Licence" there is no dispute. The petitioner has not made any grievance in the petition that he was not informed of all the material facts relating to the offence which he had attempted to commit.
(4) By his letter dated 22-10-1956 the petitioner applied for permission to recover back the material from the docks. On 23-10-1956 the Assistant Collector of Customs gave a heaarig to the petitioner. On 27-10-1956 the petitioner addressed a letter to the Agriculatural and Marketing Adviser, Government of India, for the purpose of obtaining an opinion as regards the question whether the goods of the petitioner were waste wool o raw wool. Waste wool did not require any licence but raw wool required Export Trade Controllers endorsement of having licenced the goods as also a grading certificate of the goods for the purpose of export tthereof. By his letter dated 29-10-1956 the petitioner offered to execute a bod in terms of te draft annexed to that letter in connection with the return of the goods to the petitioner pending the decision of the question as to whether the petitioners goods required "grading" and an Export Licence. On 31-10-1956 a second hearing was given by
AI
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
