1955 (8) TMI 1 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the petition due to technical objections.
2. Exhaustion of legal remedy before approaching the court.
3. Interpretation of Customs Tariff items 45(3) and 61(8) for duty assessment.
4. Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector in assessing goods.
5. Fundamental rights infringement and exhaustion of legal remedies.
6. Proper respondent in the petition.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the petition
The appeal raised a simple question regarding the duty assessment of imported fountain pens. Technical objections were raised regarding the maintainability of the petition, contending that the petitioner had not exhausted the legal remedy available to him under the Sea Customs Act. The Advocate General argued that relief cannot be granted through mandamus or certiorari if adequate specific legal remedies exist.

Issue 2: Exhaustion of legal remedy
The Sea Customs Act provides for an appeal to the Collector and further revision to the Central Government. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting legal remedies before seeking exceptional remedies under Article 226 or 227. However, in this case, the court allowed the petition to proceed due to exceptional circumstances and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Customs Tariff items
The dispute revolved around whether the fountain pens should be assessed under item 45(3) or 61(8) of the Customs Tariff. The court analyzed the historical context of the tariff items and concluded that the fountain pens, being complete articles, fell under item 45(3) which specifically dealt with fountain pens, rather than item 61(8) which was more general in nature.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector
The court clarified that the Assistant Collector's decision was administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial. The focus was on whether the officer acted contrary to the duty imposed by statute. The court disagreed with the view that the Assistant Collector acted without jurisdiction, emphasizing the need for a prima facie submission of the officer acting contrary to statute in mandamus cases.

Issue 5: Fundamental rights infringement
The court considered the argument that an illegal imposition of tax could infringe fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. While discussing the need to exhaust legal remedies, the court did not delve into the larger question of fundamental rights infringement and the exhaustion of remedies before approaching the court under Article 226 or 227.

Issue 6: Proper respondent in the petition
An objection was raised regarding the respondent being the former Collector of Customs. The court noted that the objection should have been raised earlier and directed the formal amendment of the petition to include the current Collector as a respondent. The court emphasized not allowing technical objections to impede the proceedings.

In conclusion, the court upheld the view that the fountain pens fell under item 45(3) of the Customs Tariff, dismissing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of interpreting specific tariff items accurately for duty assessment.