1969 (9) TMI 41 - SC - Customs

Whether exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit does not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal? Held that - The finality which may be declared by the statute qua certain liability either by express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court or by clear implication does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs. The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit challenging the validity of the imposition of the duty of customs being excluded, the plaintiff s suit must fail. The appeal is allowed. The suit is ordered to be dismissed. The order of costs passed by the High Court is however maintained

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain suit challenging customs duty levy.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the levy of customs duty on imported newsprint. The plaintiff imported newsprint of width less than 15", believing it was exempt from duty under the Open General Licence. However, the Assistant Collector of Customs levied a duty of 33.3/8% ad valorem, leading the plaintiff to pay under protest and seek a refund. The customs authorities rejected the claim, citing the limitation period under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

The plaintiff then filed a suit in the City Civil Court seeking a decree against the Union of India. The Trial Court decreed the claim, but the principal Judge, City Civil Court, held that the court lacked jurisdiction based on the Sea Customs Act. The High Court of Madras, on second appeal, reversed this decision, restoring the Trial Court's decree. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the customs duty levy. The Sea Customs Act, 1878, provided a comprehensive framework for appeals and revisions against customs decisions, making the orders final. The Act constituted a complete code dealing with customs duty liability, excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters. The Court cited the principle that where a statute creates a new right or liability with a complete redress mechanism, the civil court's jurisdiction is barred.

Additionally, the Court referred to a previous case, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the civil court is excluded when a statute provides a special remedy for challenging administrative decisions. The Court clarified that while civil courts can intervene in cases of non-compliance with statutory provisions or mala fide actions, the jurisdiction to challenge customs duty imposition is excluded. The High Court's authority to issue high prerogative writs against illegal administrative actions was acknowledged, but the civil court's jurisdiction in such matters was deemed excluded.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissing the plaintiff's suit challenging the customs duty imposition. The Court highlighted the need for administrative authorities to avoid unnecessary litigation and act in the interest of justice, urging a broader concept of justice over technicalities in governmental actions. The Court maintained the costs order passed by the High Court and made no additional cost orders in the appeal.