A party may preclude itself from claiming a writ of certiorari by not raising a point before the Tribunal whose order was being challenged, but raising the point for the first time before the court.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows : The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the company") carries on business, inter alia, as importers of split betel nuts. On or about July 24, 1959 the company placed an order for split betel nuts with Messrs. T. N. Sharma Ltd. , of Penang, Malaya. On or about July 28, 1959 the order was accepted at the rate of Rs. 26-50 np. per Cwt. , c. i. f. Calcutta. According to the letter of acceptance, the goods were to be shipped by the first available steamer. The goods were actually shipped on or about August 24, 1959 after which the company was apprised of the shipment and cleared the shipping documents. On or about September 8, 1959 the consignment arrived at the Port of Calcutta and bills of entry were duly filled in, as required under the Sea Customs Act. The value declared was Rs. 2531. 81 np. On September 19, 1959 a show-cause notice was issued upon the company by the Assistant Collector for Appraisement, Customs House, Calcutta, a copy whereof is annexed to the petition at p. 10. In that notice it was stated that upon examination of the sample drawn from the consignment imported by the company ex s. s. Nankai Maru from Penang, of split betel nuts, and after comparing them with the value of comparable qualities of the goods imported during the period of despatch and cleared through the Customs House, and on the basis of overseas market reports during the approximate time, it was found that the real value of the goods was at the rate of Rs. 55. 77 np. per picul c. i. f. Calcutta, whereas it has been declared in the relative documents by the company as Rs. 26. 50 np. per picul c. i. f. Calcutta. Therefore, the goods were undervalued to the extent of Rs. 1840. 76 np. As a result of this misdeclaration of value, the company was directed to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated and a penalty imposed under Section 167, Clause (37) of the Sea Customs Act. The company was further requested to produce a valid import license for the cerrect value of the goods, failing which, it was requited to show cause under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3 (2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. To this show-Cause notice, the company replied and the reply dated September 28, 1959 is to be found in the annexure to the petition at p. 11. In the explanation, the only point taken was that the betel nuts were purchased at Rs. 26. 50 np. per Cwt. and not picul, sometime in July 1959, but they were shipped some weeks later, because in spite of enquiries made by the company the suppliers postponed the date of shipment alleging that the delay was caused by heavy rains and shipping difficulties. In other words, the only point that was taken was that the value to be considered for the purpose of assessment was the value at the end of July, when the contract for the goods was made. There was no objection on the ground that the company had not been given an opportunity of inspecting the other "comparable qualities" of goods with which the goods imported by the company were compared. Nor was any objection, taken to the effect that the overseas market reports were not to be relied upon, and that no inspection had been granted thereof to the company. Nor was it stated that the alleged value of Rs. 55. 77 np. per picul c. i. f. was not a correct figure for the real value of the goods on the date of importation. On the 19th October, 1959 a second show cause notice was issued. This is practically a repetition of the first notice excepting that the figures relating to the real value were altered. It was stated that the real value had been ascertained to be Rs. 47. 25 np. per Cwt. c. i. f. whereas the value declared by the company was Rs. 26. 50 np. per Cwt. c. i. f. The goods were therefore undervalued to the extent of Rs. 1,982. 45np. The reason why the second notice had to be given has been made clear in the affidavit in opposition. The first notic