2006 (4) TMI 161 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Calculation of interest rate.
2. Disallowance of pre-suit interest.
3. Cost incurred on restoration of the car.
4. Disallowance of loss on the sale of the car.
5. Calculation errors in the judgment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Calculation of Interest Rate:
The plaintiff argued that the interest should have been awarded at the rate of 24% per annum instead of 12%, citing a statutory provision. However, the court found no statutory basis for this claim. The court reasoned that the interest rate of 24% charged by Customs authorities includes a punitive element and is not reflective of the market rate. The court maintained that the plaintiff, being a businessman, is entitled to market interest, which was determined to be 12% per annum. The plaintiff's plea for a higher interest rate was deemed a matter for appeal rather than review.

2. Disallowance of Pre-suit Interest:
The plaintiff contended that the disallowance of interest for the period before the suit was filed was incorrect. The court had initially disallowed this interest, stating that the plaintiff delayed in approaching the court. However, the plaintiff argued that the delay was due to the legal process, including the dismissal of an appeal, and the mandatory notice period under Section 80 of the CPC. The court accepted this argument, acknowledging that the plaintiff filed the suit promptly after the legal proceedings concluded. Thus, the plaintiff was entitled to pre-suit interest at 12% per annum from December 19, 1997, to December 18, 2000.

3. Cost Incurred on Restoration of the Car:
The plaintiff claimed that the total cost incurred on restoring the car was Rs. 3,13,421, not Rs. 2,25,000 as granted by the court. The court acknowledged that some invoices in foreign currency (Dirham) might not have been considered due to the absence of conversion rates. Given that the documents were proved and there was no cross-examination on this aspect, the court agreed that the expenditure in foreign currency should have been included. This omission was deemed an accidental error, warranting modification of the judgment.

4. Disallowance of Loss on the Sale of the Car:
The plaintiff argued that the disallowance of the loss on the sale of the car was a mistake. The plaintiff's legal heirs, who took over after his demise, claimed that they could not provide proper evidence due to the circumstances. They sought to introduce new documents, including a cash receipt and delivery receipt, to support their claim. However, the court found this reasoning unconvincing. The plaintiff had ample opportunity to present these documents earlier. The court rejected the review application on this ground, stating that the appropriate remedy was an appeal, not a review.

5. Calculation Errors in the Judgment:
The plaintiff pointed out a calculation error, stating that the interest for 4 years and 204 days (not 4.5 years) on Rs. 20 lakhs should be Rs. 10,94,137, not Rs. 10,80,000. The court agreed with this correction. Consequently, the total amount payable under the judgment was adjusted to Rs. 19,07,558. The court modified the decree to reflect this corrected amount, noting that the previous calculation was an accidental error.

Conclusion:
The review application was partly allowed, resulting in modifications to the decree regarding the pre-suit interest, restoration costs, and calculation errors. The court reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to re-evaluating the merits of the case.