1978 (6) TMI 59 - HC - Customs

Civil suit not entertainable if the customs officer acted bona fide - Customs duty - Affidavit-in-Opposition - Refund - Duty paid without protest - Admissibility

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payment of duty was made by way of advance.
2. Whether there was any acknowledgment of liability by the defendant.
3. Whether the plaintiff was restrained from realizing the sums during a specific period.
4. Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
6. Reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Payment of Duty as Advance
The plaintiff claimed that the payments made were advances towards customs duty, which would only be applicable if the goods were exported. The defendant argued that the payments were made as customs duty, not as advances, and were non-refundable as the plaintiff did not follow the statutory procedure for refunds under the Customs Act. The court found that the payments were indeed made as customs duty and not as advances, as evidenced by the adjustment of accounts and the lack of protest from the plaintiff at the time of payment.

Issue 2: Acknowledgment of Liability
The plaintiff argued that the defendant acknowledged its liability to refund the sums through affidavits and letters. However, the court found that the language used in the defendant's affidavits, stating that the money was not payable "at this stage," did not constitute a clear and unequivocal acknowledgment of liability. Therefore, there was no acknowledgment of liability by the defendant.

Issue 3: Restraint from Realizing Sums
The plaintiff claimed that they were restrained by court orders from realizing the sums during the period from December 22, 1967, to March 6, 1970. The court found that there was no injunction or order restraining the plaintiff from withdrawing the sums during the specified period. The plaintiff admitted that there was no injunction preventing them from withdrawing the sums between June 1967 and December 1967.

Issue 4: Bar under the Customs Act, 1962
The defendant argued that the suit was barred under Section 155 of the Customs Act, which provides protection for actions taken in good faith under the Act. The court agreed, stating that the Customs authorities acted in good faith and in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not allege any mala fides or ultra vires actions by the Customs authorities.

Issue 5: Barred by Limitation
The defendant contended that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the law of limitation, as the plaintiff did not apply for a refund within the six-month period stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was indeed barred by limitation, as no application for a refund was made within the required timeframe, and the suit was filed more than three years after the appeal was disposed of.

Issue 6: Reliefs
Given the findings on the previous issues, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The suit was dismissed with costs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit with costs, answering issues 1, 2, and 3 in the negative, and issues 4 and 5 in the positive. The plaintiff's claims were found to be non-maintainable due to the failure to follow statutory procedures for refunds, the absence of acknowledgment of liability by the defendant, and the claims being barred by the law of limitation.

← Previous Next →