1965 Supreme(Cal) 202

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
H. K. Bose, B. C. Mitra
ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Appellant
Versus
BEST AND CO. - Respondent
Appln. For Leave And Appeal To Supreme Court In Appeal 254  Of  1963 (Matter No. 167 Of 1962)
Decided On : AUGUST 17, 1965

The time taken in obtaining a certified copy of the judgment and order would be excluded as provided in Section 12 (2) of the Lim. Act, if a copy of the same is annexed to the petition, even though it is not necessary to annex a copy of the same to the petition. But if an application is moved without a copy of the order, a claim for exclusion of the time taken in obtaining a copy of the order from computation of the period of limitation cannot be sustained.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT - Import license - Misdeclaration of value - Penalty - Confiscation - Limitation for filing application for certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent was granted an import license for the import of certain machinery from West Germany. The license specified a maximum c.i.f. value for the goods and a condition that the license was not valid for clearance if the actual value of any item exceeded the c.i.f. value specified in the license by more than 5%. The respondent submitted a bill of entry in which the c.i.f. value of the machines was shown at Rs. 44,843.61 np. and the total value inclusive of all landing charges amounted to Rs. 45,179.92 np. Customs duty was assessed on the value of the goods as declared in the bill of entry and on payment of such duty, the respondent cleared the goods. Upon receiving information that the value of the goods had been misdeclared, customs authorities searched the business premises of the respondent and also of the agents of the manufacturers at Calcutta. Various letters and documents were seized and according to the petitioners these letters proved that the value of the Roods had been misdeelared by the respondent. A show cause notice was issued, calling upon the respondent to show cause why penal action should not be taken under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. The respondent was charged with illegal importation of goods of the value of Rs. 6750.74 np., being the excess value of the machines, which were not covered by the import license. The respondent submitted several explanations to the said show cause notice and personal hearing was granted to it. By an adjudication order dated 17-3-1962 it was held that the charges against the respondents had been established and a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the respondent. An order for confiscation of the machines under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3 (2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, was also made. By this order the respondent was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000 in lieu of confiscation within a week of the receipt of the order, and in default the respondent was directed to surrender the machines within 10 days of the said order. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 was also imposed by this order on the agent of the manufacturers of Calcutta. The respondent challenged the legality and validity of the said order dated 17-3-1962 and for an order directing the petitioners not to give effect to the same and also for an order for quashing the said order. A Rule Nisi was issued, which was discharged by Banerjee, J. by an order made on 2-9-1963. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal against the said order discharging the Rule and this appeal was disposed of by this Bench by a judgment dated 18-12-1964, whereby the said appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the trial Court were set aside am! appropriate writs were directed to be issued. The petitioners now propose to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and this application has been mane for a certificate as hereinbefore mentioned tor the purposes of this appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application for a certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution was barred by the law of limitation. The court found that the application was moved without a certified copy of the order having been obtained by the petitioners, and that the time taken in obtaining a certified copy of the order could not be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation.

Issues: 1. Whether the application for a certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution was barred by the law of limitation? 2. Whether the time taken in obtaining a certified copy of the order could be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the application for a certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution was barred by the law of limitation. 2. The court held that the time taken in obtaining a certified copy of the order could not be excluded from the computation of the period of limitation, as the application had been moved without a certified copy of the order having been obtained by the petitioners.

Final Decision: The application for a certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution was dismissed with costs.