SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1951 Supreme(Cal) 54

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
MONORANJAN ROY - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - Respondent
Matter 85  Of  1950
Decided On : FEBRUARY 19, 1951

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SEN, P.C.MULICK

The court held that the Customs authorities had applied themselves to the consideration of the matter and had arrived at a determination after giving the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The court held that the decision of the Customs authorities on the merits may be erroneous, but it could not interfere on that ground.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT - IMPORT OF SINGLE FACED CORRUGATED PAPER - CLASSIFICATION - PENALTY - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - REFUND OF PENALTY - SECTION 133, SEA CUSTOMS ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a dealer in paper, imported 340 rolls of single faced brown corrugated paper without a special license. The Customs authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 3300/- on the consignment, classifying it as "paste Board, Mill Board, Card Board and Straw Beard all sorts" under Customs Tariff Item No. 44 (4). The petitioner challenged the penalty, alleging that the goods were "paper" and not "board", and that the penalty was arbitrary and mala fide.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Customs authorities had applied themselves to the consideration of the matter and had arrived at a determination after giving the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The court held that the decision of the Customs authorities on the merits may be erroneous, but it could not interfere on that ground.

Issues: 1. Whether the single faced corrugated paper imported by the petitioner was correctly classified as "paste Board, Mill Board, Card Board and Straw Beard all sorts" under Customs Tariff Item No. 44 (4). 2. Whether the penalty imposed by the Customs authorities was arbitrary and mala fide. 3. Whether the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal under the Sea Customs Act or a right of action under the general law.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Customs authorities had applied themselves to the consideration of the matter and had arrived at a determination after giving the petitioner an opportunity to present his case. The court held that the decision of the Customs authorities on the merits may be erroneous, but it could not interfere on that ground. 2. The court held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of appeal under the Sea Customs Act or a right of action under the general law. The court held that an appeal under the Act would not have been an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case, but that the petitioner could file a suit and proceed expeditiously with it. 3. The court held that the prayer for refund of the penalty could not be acceded to in the application as the money paid had gone into the Government exchequer and had become part of the general revenue or fund of the country.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.

BOSE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 45. Specific Relief Act for an order on the respondent to cancel or withdraw the order dated 7-8-1950 made by the respondent imposing a penalty of Rs. 3300/- in respect of a consignment of goads imported by the petitioner without the requisite licence and also for an order for refund of the said sum of Rs. 3300/- paid by the petitioner pursuant to the said order of the respondent.

( 2 ) THE petitioner carries on business as dealer in paper of various kinds and is one of the largest importers of single faced corrugated paper in this country. The single faced corrugated paper is known in this country as also in the countries from which they are imported as "paper1' as opposed to "board". Between May 1945 and June 1947 paper could be imported from the United Kingdom by importers of this country under Open General Licence No. VII and no restrictions were imposed by the Government upon the import of single faced corrugated paper from the United Kingdom. Since July 1947 the Government of India imposed vigorous restrictions on the import of paper from foreign countries including the United Kingdom and no paper could be imported without an import licence granted by the Government. Such restrictions continued till June, 1948. Thereafter and until May 1949 paper could be imported in India from all Sterling and Soft Currency areas under Open General Licence No. XI. Between July and November 1948 the petitioner imported 2200 rolls of single faced corrugated paper from Czechoslovakia, Finland and United Kingdom and the petitioner was charged with duty payable for "paper including Poster and 'stereo and all coated papers except art paper, all sorts, not otherwise specified" as referred to under the then Customs Tariff Items No. 44. From May 1949 the Government of India again imposed restrictions on the import of paper including single faced corrugated paper and no merchant could import single faced corrugated paper without a licence from the Government. The Government, however, notified at the time that in case where traders of this country had already entered into firm contracts for the import of paper under Open General Licence No. XI they would be allowed to import such paper under a special licence to be granted by the Government. In or about April 1949, the petitioner placed orders with Thomson and Norris Manufacturing Co. Ltd. of Middlesex in the United Kingdom for import of 1000 rolls of single faced corrugated paper of which 500 rolls arrived at the Calcutta Port in July 1949 and the remaining 500 rolls in October 1949. The petitioner duly applied to the Government for a special licence for the import of these 1000 rolls of paper and was granted a special licence No. 091546/48 C. C. I. dated 30-7-1949. Upon the arrival of the said 1000 rolls of paper at the Calcutta Port the Customs authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 2900/- for each lot on the basis that they were not paper but came under the heading of "paste Board, Mill Board, Card Board and Straw Board all sorts" as referred to under Customs Tariff Item No. 44 (4) and as the petitioner had not the necessary licence required for the import of such goods and the Customs Authorities purported to act under Section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. On 20-12-1949 the petitioner appealed to the Central Board of Revenue from the said order of the Collector of Customs but the Raid appeal is still pending. Thereafter the petitioner obtained from the Government further licences for the import of "paper and other sorts" the last of such licences being No. 220699/48 C. C. I. dated 6th April. 1950. By virtue of this licence No. 220699/48 the petitioner in April 1950 placed an order with Messrs. Donaldson and Filter Ltd, of Glasgow through the latter's local representative in Calcutta one Antoine Bentz of Stephen House, Calcutta, for the import of 340 rolls of single faced brown corrugated paper. The said















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top