1965 (5) TMI 3 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the refund of Customs Duties.
2. Application of Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act.
3. Application of Section 140 of the Sea Customs Act.
4. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedies under Section 191 of the Sea Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Refund of Customs Duties:
The respondent, an exporter of tea, initially submitted six shipping bills between 24th March 1962 and 30th March 1962 for export duty assessment. Due to a change in the vessel, the shipping bills were amended on 19th April 1962. The respondent's account was debited Rs. 67,445.40 nP. based on the prevailing duty rate of .44 nP. per kilogramme. On 24th April 1962, the duty rate was reduced to .10 nP. per kilogramme. The respondent filed new shipping bills on 26th April 1962 and was debited Rs. 20,066.40 nP. based on the reduced rate. The respondent sought a refund for the overpaid duty, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. However, the Additional Collector of Customs later allowed the refund at the lower rate. The High Court ultimately ruled that the respondent was entitled to a refund at the higher rate initially paid due to an error or misconstruction.

2. Application of Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act:
Section 40 deals with refunds for duties paid through inadvertence, error, or misconstruction. The High Court found that the respondent's payment of Rs. 67,445.40 nP. was due to an error or misconstruction, as the duty should have been calculated at the reduced rate of .10 nP. per kilogramme prevailing at the time of the ship's arrival and the order for entry outwards. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to a refund under Section 40, despite the section not being explicitly cited in the original petition. The facts substantiating the claim were sufficiently set out in the petition, and technicalities should not prevent the respondent from obtaining relief.

3. Application of Section 140 of the Sea Customs Act:
Section 140 pertains to refunds for non-shipment or short shipment of goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the respondent's claim for a refund under Section 140, stating that the goods were shipped in full under the second set of shipping bills. The High Court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on the applicability of Section 140, as the respondent was already entitled to relief under Section 40.

4. Availability and Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies under Section 191 of the Sea Customs Act:
The appellants argued that the respondent should have sought a revision under Section 191 before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is discretionary, not mandatory. The learned trial Judge had exercised discretion in granting relief under Article 226, and this discretion should not be interfered with unless shown to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The High Court found that the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed in excess of jurisdiction and were manifestly unjust, justifying the respondent's recourse to the writ application.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the respondent's entitlement to a refund of the overpaid duty under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act, dismissed the appeal, and awarded costs to the respondent. The judgment emphasized the importance of substance over form in legal pleadings and the discretionary nature of the rule on exhausting alternative remedies.

← Previous Next →