AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has asked for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2,21,910. 30p with interest (9 18% per annum on compound basis. The facts leading to this application are stated hereinafter.

( 2 ) THE petitioner carries on business of import under the name and style of Calcutta Hardware Stores.

( 3 ) THE petitioner imported 36 coils of stainless steel sheet in 1980. In respect of the said consignment the bill of entry for home consumption was submitted and the custom duty was paid on 5th November, 1980 when the said goods were with the Customs Authorities in the Dock. The petitioner applied for examination of the goods by the Customs Authorities for determining the damaged or deterioration in the said goods.

( 4 ) ON 7th November, 1980 the said goods were examined by the Examining Officer, the said Appraiser and Assistant Collector of Customs (Dock) for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of damage to the goods. It was found that the said goods were actually damaged and damage was quantified to the extent of 3096. The said goods were also examined by the Insurance Surveyor and the report of the Surveyor showed that the said goods had been damaged and deteriorated in quality due to rough and careless handling and/or bad storing during voyage.

( 5 ) THE Assistant Collector of Customs (Dock) also submitted a report in which he said -"the damage/deterioration is estimated to the extent of 30% on the 28 coils. The remaining 8 coils are found to be in sound condition". In view of the aforesaid damage caused to the coils the petitioner became entitled to abatement of duty under Section 22 (1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and applied for refund of duty. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Refund Section dismissed the petitioner's application for refund of duty on 23rd June 1982 on the plea that it had not been established that the said goods have been damaged and/or deteriorated at any time before or during unloading of the goods in India.

( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector (Appeals ). After hearing the parties and considering the records the Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs.

( 7 ) AGAINST the said order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 4th June, 1983 the Collector of Customs moved an application to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the said appeal was barred by limitation. The Tribunal was of the view that' the appeal was barred by limitation and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal were dismissed by the Tribunal on 18th July, 1985.

( 8 ) THE Customs Authorities thereafter filed another application before the Tribunal for review on the plea that there had been some mistakes on their part. The matter was considered by the Tribunal and by another order dated 21st February, 1986 the Tribunal rejected the said application on the ground that the Tribunal having passed an order upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case it was no longer open to the Tribunal to review or revise its order.

( 9 ) THE respondents thereafter moved a reference application before the Tribunal praying for a reference on a point of law to the High Court. The Tribunal rejected the reference application by the order dated 10th April 1986. thereafter no further proceedings were initiated.

( 10 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the claim of the refund is based on the abatement which the petitioner is entitled to having regard to the order of the Collector (Appeals ). It is also contended that the petitioner is entitled not only to the refund of Rs. 2,21,910. 30p. but int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document