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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 299

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KANAGARAJ
Best and Crompton Engineering - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Madras - Respondents
Reference Case Nos. 13 & 14 of 1985
Decided On : 28 February 1997

Appearing Advocates:K. Ilias Ali, S. Veeraghavan, Advocates.

The Proper Officer who passed the "Out of Customs charge" order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, did not have the power to review or cancel the same.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 - SECTION 47 - ORDER UNDER SECTION 47 - CANCELLATION - VALIDITY - POWER OF PROPER OFFICER - REVIEW OR ALTERATION OF ORDER - SCOPE OF SECTION 154.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants imported Nickel under Open General Licence. The Deputy Collector of Customs confiscated the goods but allowed clearance on payment of a fine. The applicants paid the fine and duty and obtained an "Out of Customs charge" order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. Later, the applicants found the packages damaged and requested a survey. The Proper Officer cancelled the "Out of Customs charge" order. The applicants filed a claim for refund of excess duty paid under Section 13 of the Act, which was rejected. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. The applicants moved the Tribunal for a reference to the High Court on the question of law whether the cancellation of the "Out of Customs charge" order was valid.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Proper Officer who passed the "Out of Customs charge" order under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, did not have the power to review or cancel the same. The subsequent cancellation of the order was a nullity and non est in the eye of law. The applicants could not claim any rights on such a void or illegal order.

Issues: Whether the cancellation of the "Out of Customs charge" order originally made under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, can be considered to be valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The exercise of power under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, has the consequences of conferring or denying rights to a citizen and correspondingly certain rights or obligations vest with the Department. An exercise of power with such consequences has necessarily to be viewed as a quasi-judicial exercise of power. In the absence of any specific provision or power conferred upon such officer to review or alter or cancel the said order, the proper officer empowered to exercise power under Section 47, cannot be said to possess any such power and no such power could be considered to inhere in him by mere inference.

Final Decision: The High Court answered the question referred to it in both the references by holding that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Department was right and well-merited in holding that the cancellation of the "Out of customs charge" order originally made under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, cannot be considered to be valid.

Judgment :-

D. RAJU, J.

The above references have been made under Section 130 (1) of Customs Act, 1961, at the instance of the respective applicants-Collector of Customs, Custom House, Madras, referring the following question of law for our consideration and decision :

"Whether in the facts of circumstances of the case, the cancellation of the 'Out of Customs charge' Order given under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be considered to be not a valid one as held by the Department" *

.

2.So far as R.C. 13 of 1985 is concerned, the applicants appear to have imported 1000 MT of Nickel by the vessel M.V. John which arrived at Madras Port in December, 1979. There appeared to be some disputes in respect of the goods under Open General Licence and the Deputy Collector of Customs who confiscated the goods in adjudication proceedings appears to have allowed clearance on the payment of a fine of Rs. 25, 000/-. The applicants paid the fine and duty levied on the entire consignment on 7-10-1980. After the payment of duty, the applicants obtained "Out of Charge" order on the Bill of Entry from the Proper Officer viz., Deputy Office Superintendent, Accounts Department, under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962, in respect of the goods already examined in the dock.

3.Subsequently the applicants on inspection of the consignment in the docks, seem to have found the packages in a damaged conditions and suspected damages and requested the Customs Department and obtained an 'Open and Inspection' order from the scrutinising Appraiser of the concerned assessment group in the Customs House. When this order was shown to the proper officer who had issued the "out of charge" order earlier with a view to cancel the same to enable them to hold a survey, the proper officer cancelled the signature in the Bill of Entry and attested the same. But when the applicant requested for examination of the packages by their letter dated 27-10-1980, the Assistant Collector refused permission. The applicants in such circumstances, relying upon the Lloyd's surveyors representative, who appears to have independently confirmed the shortages, filed a claim under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 for refund of excess duty paid as shortage were found by the Surveyors. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his letters dated 6-7-1981 and 4-8-1981 rejected and refund claim. The appeal filed thereon, before the Appellate Collector of Customs also failed and the appeal was rejected by an order dated 13-3-1983 as against which this matter was pursued before the Tribunal under Section 129(1) and the Tribunal also concurred with the orders of the Authorities below and dismissed the appeal by its order dated 27-10-1984. It is only thereafter the applicants moved the Tribunal for a reference to this Court on the question of law noticed supra.

4.So far as R.C. 14 of 1985 is concerned the applicants in this case also imported 1000 MT Nickel by the vessel S.S. Nodalloyd Weser which arrived at Madras Port in December, 1979. As in the other case there appears to be some dispute in respect of the import of the goods under the Open General Licence resulting in the Deputy Collector of Customs order of confiscation with liberty to clear the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 25, 000/-. The applicants paid the fine and duty levied on the entire consignment on 7-10-1980 and after such payment of the duty the applicants obtained a "out of charge" order on the Bill of Entry from the proper officer viz., The Deputy Office Superintendent, Accounts Department under Section 47 of the Act in respect of the goods already examined in the docks.

5.As in the previous case the applicants herein also on inspection of the consignment in the docks found the packages in damages condition and suspected shortage and requested the Customs Department for a survey and obtained an "Open Inspection Order" from the scrutinising Appraiser of the concerned assessment group in the Customs House. When this order was shown as






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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