Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
S. C. Lahiri, R. S. Bachawat
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FOR APPRAISEMENT - Appellant
Versus
MERCANTILE EXPRESS CO. LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 114 Of 1958
Decided On : JULY 29, 1960
CUSTOMS DUTY - Assessment - Import of Armco Nestable Steel Culverts - Classification under Indian Tariff Act, 1934 - Whether assessable under item 63 (9) or item 63 (28) of the first schedule - Scope and interpretation of item 63 (9) - Whether the goods are 'steel structures' for construction of bridges or 'similar structures' - Held, the goods are assessable under item 63 (9) and not under item 63 (28).
Fact of the Case:
The respondents imported a quantity of Armco Nestable Steel Culverts complete with accessories required by the Government of Assam under an import license issued to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Assam. They duly submitted a bill of entry in accordance with Section 29 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878) stating the real value, quantity and description of the goods. They contend that the goods are assessable to customs duty under item 63 (9) o the first schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (Act XXXII of 1934 ). By an order dated the 30th June, 1955 the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement rejected the respondents' contention and assessed the duty under item 63 (28) of the first schedule to Act XXXII of 1934.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate authority ruled that the culverts "cannot be considered to fall within the purview of 'steel structures' for construction of bridges assessable under item 63 (9 )." This ruling means either that the culverts are not steel structures or that though they are steel structure they are not used for construction of bridges. The meaning however is made plain by the affidavit of Sri B. N. Dutt filed on behalf of the respondents. In para-graph 7 (c) of his affidavit Sri Dutt stated, "in the view of the customs authorities these Armco Nestable Culverts are not structures. The customs authorities were of the view that these Armco Nestable Culverts were not designed to carry loads and are not considered structures and that they are therefore assessable under item 63 (28) and not under item 63 (9 ). of the Indian Customs Tariff. " In ruling that the culverts are not steel structures the appellate authority erred in law and completely misdirected himself.
Issues: Whether the imported goods are assessable under item 63 (9) or item 63 (28) of the first schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934.
Ratio Decidendi: The expression "structure" is not a technical term of art. The plain and popular import of the expression furnishes the true rule of its interpretation. The expression "structure" means some construction, or fabrication some production artificially constructed and fashioned in some definite manner. The descriptive literature relied on by the appellate order describes the culverts as structures. The appellate authority has recorded the finding that the articles are culverts made of fabricated steel sheets. The expression "fabricated" implies that the shape and form have been moulded by human operation for some particular ultimate use. The finding of the appellate authority therefore implies that the imported articles are constructions made of steel sheets artificially shaped and formed by human operation and adapted and fashioned for the construction of culverts. On this finding there can be no doubt that the culverts are steel structures within the purview of item 63 (9 ). The suggestion that in order to be a structure the article must be designed to carry loads is baseless. An article may be a structure though it is not designed to carry loads, A well curb unlike a bridge is not designed to carry loads; yet it is a structure within the meaning of item 63 (9 ).
Final Decision: The order made by the learned trial Judge be modified and in lieu of the order passed by him the following order be substituted:"it is ordered that. the order dated the llth July, 1955 passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, mentioned in the petition on which the Order nisi dated the 8th September, 1953 was issued, be and is set aside. And it is further ordered that the said Order nisi be and the same is made absolute. And it is further ordered that a writ in the nature of certiorari be and is issued quashing the decision and order of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, dated the llth July, 1955, And it is further ordered that a writ in the nature of mandamus be and is issued and that the respondents to the said petition be and are directed to forbear from giving effect to the said decision and order. And it is further ordered that the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, do proceed to hear the appeal before him from the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement, Calcutta dated the 30th July, 1955 and mentioned in die said petition and do decide the same according to law and as laid down in this judgment and in the light of the observations contained therein. And it is further ordered that if on the decision of such appeal any money becomes refundable to Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. , the same be refunded to them. " Subject to the modification as aforesaid the appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from an order under Article 220 of the Constitution. The respondents imported a quantity of Armco Nestable Steel Culverts complete with accessories required by the Government of Assam under an import license issued to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Assam. The respondents duly submitted a bill of entry in accordance with Section 29 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878) stating the real value, quantity and description of the goods. They contend that the goods are assessable to customs duty under item 63 (9) o the first schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (Act XXXII of 1934 ). By an order dated the 30th June, 1955 the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement rejected the respondents' contention and assessed the duty under item 63 (28) of the first schedule to Act XXXII of 1934. The duty so assessed amounts to Rs. 73315/8/ -. The respondents appealed to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. Pending the appeal they deposited the sum of Rs. 73315/8/- with the Collector of Customs under protest as required by Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act. By an order dated the 11th July, 1955, the Collector of Customs dismissed the appeal.
( 2 ) ON the 8th September, 1955, the respondents applied to D. N. Sinha, J. , under Article 226 of the Constitution for appropriate writs setting aside the orders of the customs authorities and for consequential reliefs and obtained a rule calling upon the Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement, the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and the Union ot India to show cause why the reliefs prayed for should not be granted. By an order dated the 30th April, 1958, P. B. Mukharji, J. , made the rule absolute, set aside both the orders dated the 30th June, 1955 and the llth July, 1955, issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the two orders and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing. the appellants to forbear from giving effect to those orders and directed the customs authorities to proceed according to law to assess the goods under item 63 (9) and to make a refund to the respondents, if on such assessment any money becomes refundable to them. The customs authorities and the Union of India have preferred an appeal from this order.
( 3 ) IN this Court Mr. Kar contended that the impugned orders are administrative, and not quasi-judicial orders and as such the Court has no power to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash them. This contention was not raised in the trial court.
( 4 ) THE classic test of a quasi-judicial body to whom a writ of certiorari or prohibition may be issued is thus laid down by Atkin, L. J. in Rex v. Electricity Commissioners, (1924) 1 KB 171. "whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects, and having the duty to act judicially, act in excess of their legal authority they are subject to the controlling jurisdiction of the King's Bench Division exercised in these writs,"
( 5 ) THE original order of assessment was passed under Section 87 and the appellate order confirming the assessment was made under Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act. There can be no doubt that in making these orders the Sea Customs authorities were exercising legal authority to determine questions affecting the right of citizens. The important question is whether they had the duty to act judicially.
( 6 ) BY Section 29 of the Sea Customs Act on the importation or exportation of any goods the owner of the goods is required to submit his bill of entry or shipping bill and to declare therein the real value, quantity and description of the goods. In case of doubt the Customs Collector is given the power to require the owner and other persons to produce documents and to furnish information whereby the real value, quantity and description of the goods may be ascertained. Section 29-A provides for assessment of duty prior to examination of goods. Section 29-B enables prov
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
