1952 (2) TMI 1 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Assistant Collector of Customs was acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.
2. Whether the Customs authorities violated principles of natural justice.
3. Whether Section 198 of the Sea Customs Act barred the proceedings.
4. Whether the existence of alternative remedies precluded the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Capacity:
The court held that the Assistant Collector of Customs was acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. The judgment emphasized that Section 182 of the Sea Customs Act uses the term "adjudged," indicating a judicial approach is required. The court noted, "The use of the word 'adjudged' suggests that arriving at a decision that goods should be confiscated or that they should bear an increased rate of duty or that a penalty should be demanded is a judicial matter or certainly a matter which requires a judicial approach." Furthermore, the court cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Ganesh Mahadev Jamsandekar v. The Secretary of State for India in Council, which supported the view that a Collector in adjudging confiscation or fining was acting judicially.

2. Violation of Natural Justice:
The court found that the Customs authorities violated the principles of natural justice. The respondents were not given a fair hearing, and the materials upon which the findings were based were withheld from them. The court stated, "The materials upon which the findings were based were withheld from the respondents and they were called upon to pay additional duty and fined a very large sum of money without ever having been heard." The court further noted that the respondents were not shown the results of the chemical tests, which were crucial to their defense. The judgment emphasized that "before a citizen of this country can be fined any sum of money in respect of an offence he should be given a full opportunity of meeting the charge which is levelled against him."

3. Section 198 of the Sea Customs Act:
The court held that Section 198 of the Sea Customs Act did not bar the proceedings. The section states, "No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against any person for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving to such person a month's previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof; or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause." The court reasoned that the acts of the Customs authorities were mala fide and could not be said to be done under the Act. The court concluded, "In such a case he merely uses the Act as a cloak to shield himself and to give his act an appearance of legality which he must have known that act could never possess."

4. Alternative Remedies:
The court acknowledged the existence of alternative remedies but held that they did not preclude the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The judgment cited several cases, including Rex. v. Wandsworth Justices, ex parte Red, which held that a writ of certiorari could be issued even if alternative remedies were available. The court stated, "Where a court or tribunal which is called upon to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions discards all rules of natural justice and arrives at a decision contrary to all accepted principles of justice then it appears to me that the court can and must interfere." The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring that officials act within the bounds of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the orders and demands made by the Customs authorities were quashed. The court held that the Assistant Collector of Customs acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, violated principles of natural justice, and that Section 198 of the Sea Customs Act did not bar the proceedings. The existence of alternative remedies did not preclude the issuance of a writ of certiorari.