1952 (9) TMI 2 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. Validity of the Customs Collector's order.
3. Adequacy and exhaustion of alternative legal remedies.
4. Interpretation of the import licenses for Diesel engines.
5. Legality and fairness of the penalties imposed by the Customs Collector.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The respondent argued that the High Court on its Original Side lacked jurisdiction for such a petition. The Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to issue such directions under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act, especially after the proviso to Article 225 of the Constitution of India restored the powers curtailed by Section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

2. Validity of the Customs Collector's Order:
The petitioner argued that the respondent should have followed the views of the Customs Collectors of Bombay and Calcutta, who allowed the import of Diesel engines of 20 to 22 H.P. under similar licenses. The Court disagreed, stating that the Madras Customs Collector was not bound by the decisions of other Customs Collectors and had the right to come to his own decision. The Court also found no rule or law requiring the respondent to follow the reasoning of the other Customs Collectors.

3. Adequacy and Exhaustion of Alternative Legal Remedies:
The respondent contended that the petitioner had other specific and adequate legal remedies, such as an appeal under Section 188 and a revision under Section 191 of the Sea Customs Act, which the petitioner deliberately refrained from pursuing. The Court held that the mere existence of another remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus or take action under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court found that the remedy of appeal had become barred by limitation and that the petitioner did not file an appeal knowing the hopelessness of his case. Therefore, the Court exercised its powers under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. Interpretation of the Import Licenses for Diesel Engines:
The petitioner argued that a license for importing Diesel engines above 20 H.P. should include engines with 20 to 22 H.P. The Court disagreed, stating that the term "above" means engines must be clearly above 20 H.P. and not merely capable of being 20 H.P. The Court found that the manufacturers' letters stating that the engines could generate up to 22 H.P. were not sufficient to alter the public declaration of the engines' capacity.

5. Legality and Fairness of the Penalties Imposed by the Customs Collector:
The petitioner argued that the penalties imposed were draconian and not in line with justice, equity, and good conscience. The Court agreed that the fine of Rs. 70,550 was excessive, especially given the marginal excess in H.P. and the petitioner's honest belief in the legality of the import. The Court found that the proper order would have been to direct the petitioner to pay the full customs duty and a fine of 12.5% of the total value of the engines, in lieu of confiscation. The Court modified the respondent's order accordingly and directed the release of the engines upon payment of the specified amounts.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the Customs Collector of Madras to release the 12 Diesel engines upon the petitioner paying the entire customs duty and a fine of 12.5% of the total value of the engines within a month. The petitioner's main contention that the engines should be released without any fine or penalty was rejected, and the petitioner was ordered to pay the entire taxed costs of the respondent.

← Previous Next →