Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P. V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Panchapakesa Ayyar, XJ.
The Collector of Customs, Madras
Versus
A.H.A. Rahiman
Writ Appeals Nos. 120 of 1955 and 53, 55 and 89 of 1956.
Decided On : 16 November 1956
CUSTOMS ACT - ADJUDICATION OF CONFISCATION AND PENALTY - WHETHER A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACT - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - WHETHER LIES - MERGER OF ORDERS - WHETHER A WRIT CAN BE ISSUED AGAINST AN INFERIOR TRIBUNAL WHEN THE ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 167 (8) OF THE SEA CUSTOMS ACT - MAXIMUM LIMIT OF PENALTY.
Fact of the Case:
In four writ petitions, the question arose whether the orders of the Collector of Customs adjudging confiscation and imposing penalty under the Sea Customs Act were quasi-judicial acts and whether writs of certiorari could be issued to quash such orders. In three of the cases, the orders of the Collector had been carried up in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue or in revision to the Government of India and the question arose whether the orders of the Collector had merged in the orders on appeal or revision and whether, therefore, writs could be issued against the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
1. The orders of the Collector of Customs adjudging confiscation and imposing penalty under the Sea Customs Act are quasi-judicial acts and writs of certiorari can be issued to quash such orders. 2. The general rule is that when an order of an inferior tribunal is carried up in appeal or revision to a superior tribunal and the superior tribunal passes an order confirming, modifying or reversing the order of the inferior tribunal and a writ cannot issue from this Court to the superior tribunal because it is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in such a case no writ can equally issue against an inferior tribunal though situate within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. This rule does not apply to cases where the order of the inferior tribunal is a nullity. 4. The maximum limit of penalty which can be imposed by the customs authorities under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act is not Rs. 1,000.
Issues: 1. Whether the orders of the Collector of Customs adjudging confiscation and imposing penalty under the Sea Customs Act are quasi-judicial acts? 2. Whether writs of certiorari can be issued to quash such orders? 3. Whether the orders of the Collector had merged in the orders on appeal or revision? 4. Whether writs could be issued against the Collector? 5. What is the maximum limit of penalty which can be imposed by the customs authorities under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Collector of Customs, while adjudging confiscation or imposing a penalty, is not a Court in its strict sense, but he has legal authority to decide and his act involves the idea of judicial approach. Therefore, the orders of the Collector of Customs adjudging confiscation and imposing penalty under the Sea Customs Act are quasi-judicial acts. 2. Writs of certiorari can be issued to quash such orders. 3. The general rule is that when an order of an inferior tribunal is carried up in appeal or revision to a superior tribunal and the superior tribunal passes an order confirming, modifying or reversing the order of the inferior tribunal and a writ cannot issue from this Court to the superior tribunal because it is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, in such a case no writ can equally issue against an inferior tribunal though situate within the jurisdiction of this Court. 4. This rule does not apply to cases where the order of the inferior tribunal is a nullity. 5. The maximum limit of penalty which can be imposed by the customs authorities under section 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act is not Rs. 1,000.
Final Decision: Writ Appeal No. 120 of 1955 was dismissed with costs. Writ Appeals Nos. 53, 55 and 89 of 1956 were allowed.
Writ Appeal No. 120 of 1955 is an appeal against the Judgment of Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., in Writ Petition No. 381 of 1953. The Collector of Customs, Madras, is the appellant. The respondent is a merchant carrying on business in Madras in piecegoods. He filed Writ petition in the following circumstances. In June, 1948, he presented through his customs broker, one Siddique Sahib, a shipping bill, dated 14th June, 1948, in respect of 100 bales of handloom piecegoods intended to be shipped to purchasers in Pakistan. From this consignment the customs authorities detained 7 bales bearing Nos. 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 834, 842, and 843 as they suspected that they contained powerloom goods, the export of which was prohibited at the time. On examination by the authorities one of these bales alone, namely, that bearing No. 1202, was found to contain powerloom goods. The others contained handloom goods as regards which there was no prohibition. The customs authorities thereupon confiscated the said bale No. 1202 but directed that it would be returned to the party on payment of a penalty of Rs. 50. The respondent alleged that he directed his broker Siddique Sahib to pay the said penalty from and out of moneys belonging to him in the agent’s hands and expected that in the normal course the agent would pay the penalty and take back the said bale. He also expected the broker to clear the other six bales. Actually, however, all the said bales including bale No. 1202 continued to remain on the premises of the Port Trust without being cleared. The Penalty of Rs. 50 apparently was not paid by Siddique Sahib. In the first week of July, 1948, the said broker Siddique Sahib presented on behalf of the respondent another shipping bill for six bales of piecegoods and it is now admitted that bale No. 1202 was one of them, and along with the other five bales it was dispatched. The respondent wrote to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, on 21st January, 1949, mentioning that the penalty of Rs. 50 imposed in respect of bale No. 1202 had not been paid and that he was prepared to pay it, that bale No. 1202 was shipped by mistake by his clearing agent along with the other bales, and requested that the ignorance on his part may be viewed leniently and a nominal penalty imposed. The respondent again wrote on the same lines on 24th May, 1949 and another letter on 16th June, 1949. He also asked for release of the bales which had not been taken delivery of. No reply, however, was given by the customs authorities to these letters. On 7th March, 1950, the respondent again wrote to the Collector of Customs again expressing regret for the error in shipping bale No. 1202 and requesting delivery of the six bales still remaining in the harbour. To this also there was no reply. But on 22nd April, 1950, the Collector of Customs passed an order, the material part of which runs as follows:
“In July, 1948, the same broker presented on behalf of the same exporter another shipping Bill (No. 3381, dated 28th July, 1948) for six bales (Nos. 1201 to 1203, 834, 842 and 843) handloom piece-goods and managed to ship five bales, leaving out bale No. 834 which was missing. The clearing agent in collusion with the exporters thus managed to ship bale No. 1202. This bale contained power-loom goods which had been confiscated by Government and the export of which, without a licence was prohibited. An offence under section 19, Sea Customs Act, punishable under section 167 (8) ibid is therefore disclosed.
Order.-The clearing broker and the shippers are the only persons who knew of the identity of the detained goods including the bale containing prohibited powerloom goods, viz., 1202, and the fact of their having mentioned this bale on the shipping bill prima fac
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
