2022 (3) TMI 370 - HC - Customs

Rejection of plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 invoking Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Ordinarily, being conscious of the amount involved in the suit proceedings and the cost of litigation thereof, perhaps this Court would not have entertained the revision petition given that the suit was filed way back in the year, 2017 and despite lapse of almost five years, it has not proceeded any further. However, having perused the provisions contained under Section 7 of the Customs Act, 1962, it is opined that allowing the civil Courts to entertain suits challenging the levy of customs duty, even if wrongly levied, would set up a bad precedent. The Act ibid is self- contained code in itself and the remedy, if any against the so-called illegal order is by way of an appeal provided therein - there are no manner of doubt that Civil Court s jurisdiction is barred in the matters of levy of customs duty, which is the case given herein. The impugned order dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court below is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the plaint filed by the plaintiff is directed to be returned to the plaintiff with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority under the Act ibid - given the inordinate delay already caused in the disposal of the grievance of the petitioner, it is expected of the Appellate Authority that in case, an appeal is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereof. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters of levy of customs duty.
2. Maintainability of appeal against non-final decree.
3. Challenge to impugned customs order and remedy under Customs Act.
4. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
5. Granting of damages in a civil suit.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of jurisdiction of Civil Court in matters of levy of customs duty. The Court emphasized that the Customs Act, 1962 provides a self-contained code, and any challenge to the levy of customs duty, even if alleged to be wrong, should be dealt with through the appellate authority as per the provisions of the Act. The Court held that allowing civil courts to entertain such suits would set a bad precedent. The judgment cited Section 155 of the Customs Act, which bars suits or legal proceedings against the Central Government or its officers for actions done in good faith in pursuance of the Act.

2. The Court also discussed the maintainability of an appeal against a non-final decree. It noted that an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the grounds that the impugned order was not a final decree. The Court clarified that the appeal was not maintainable due to the nature of the order in question.

3. In relation to the challenge to the impugned customs order and the remedy under the Customs Act, the Court set aside the order passed by the lower court and directed the plaintiff to approach the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act. The Court emphasized that the relief sought by the plaintiff, labeled as damages, could not be granted without examining the legality of the customs officer's orders.

4. Addressing the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Court pointed out that the defendants were located in Delhi, the parcel arrived at New Delhi, and the duty was levied at Delhi Foreign Post Office. The Court concluded that it did not have territorial jurisdiction as the defendants were outside its jurisdiction.

5. Lastly, the Court discussed the granting of damages in a civil suit. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiff with liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. The Court also instructed the Appellate Authority to dispose of any appeal within three months, considering the delay in addressing the petitioner's grievance.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment clarified the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in customs duty matters, highlighted the need to follow the remedy under the Customs Act, and provided directions regarding the appeal process and territorial jurisdiction.