1977 (12) TMI 30 - HC - Customs

Baggage Rules - Rule 5 - Calculating machine for research purposes - Jurisdiction - Question not raised in counter affidavit - Scope

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act.
2. Review of the order by Additional Collector of Customs.
3. Appeal for Revision Order under Section 131 of Indian Customs Act.
4. Application for appropriate writ challenging the orders passed by Additional Collector of Customs.
5. Interpretation of Baggage Rules, 1970 and applicability of Rule 5.
6. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the application.

Analysis:

1. The judgment concerns a case where the petitioner imported goods exceeding his allowance and was found in contravention of Import (Trade) Control Order. The Assistant Collector of Customs confiscated a calculating machine valued at Rs. 972 under Section 111 of the Customs Act but allowed the petitioner an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The goods were deemed dutiable under the Customs Act, and prescribed warehouse charges were to be paid for clearance.

2. A review was sought by the petitioner before the Additional Collector of Customs, who, considering the petitioner's profession as an Economist and the use of the machine in research work, decided to release the machine on payment of duty only, remitting the fine imposed by the Assistant Collector. This decision was made under Section 130 of the Act.

3. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an "Appeal for Revision Order" under Section 131 of the Indian Customs Act to the Ministry of Finance, challenging the decision of the Additional Collector. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking a writ to quash the orders passed by the Additional Collector.

4. The High Court analyzed the Baggage Rules, 1970, specifically Rule 5, which allows clearance free of duty for instruments used in the professional or calling followed by a passenger who has resided abroad for over three months. The court found that the calculating machine, being used by the petitioner in his research work as an economist, fell under Rule 5, entitling him to clearance free of duty.

5. Despite the events occurring in Bombay, the petitioner filed the application in Calcutta. The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the case, especially since the machine was in Calcutta for clearance. The court directed the Customs Authorities to release the calculating machine to the petitioner free of duty, issuing a writ of Mandamus accordingly.

6. The judgment made the Rule absolute, granting a stay of operation for four weeks. The court also directed the inclusion of a duplicate copy of the affidavit-in-opposition in the record and made no order for costs in the matter.