9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (3) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter by rail to Panruti. These consignments, which originally consisted of 3,927 bags in all, were repacked at the Port of Pondicherry, owing to damage to the gunnies, into 4,063 bags, before importation into British India. The consignments were imported into the Province of Madras by rail and carts from Pondicherry to Panruti by various instalments, the first of which consisted of 1,000 bags imported through the Customs station at Pondicherry on December 31, 1932. The remaining bags were imported in several instalments in the months of February, March and November, 1933, through the Customs stations at Pondicherry and Madalapet. 3. It appears that, prior to this occasion, the respondents had been in the habit of importing their betel-nuts at the port of Cuddalore in the Province of Madras, but, in the beginning of the year 1932, the Customs Collector at that port had assessed a similar consignment of 3,605 bags as boiled betel-nuts subject to duty on a tariff value, contrary to1 the respondents' contention that they should be assessed as raw betel-nuts, subject to duty ad valorem. In the hope that they might achieve an assessment in accordance with their contention, the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18, 1933, when their petition for revision to the Government of India was thrown, out. Various issues were framed by the Subordinate Judge, but it was decided to determine in the first instance Issue No. 3- Has this Court no jurisdiction to entertain' this suit and is the suit barred by the provisions of the Sea Customs Act? By a judgment delivered on March 30, 1937, the Subordinate Judge held that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the suit. An appeal was allowed by the High Court on February 2, 1938, and the Subordinate Judge was directed to proceed to dispose of the suit on the merits. This appeal is from that decision. 7. While the imposition of the duties here in question is regulated by the Land Customs Act (Act XIX of 1924), the matter in issue arises under certain provisions of the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) which are incorporated, subject to the necessary verbal modifications, by Section 9 of the Land Customs Act, and the schedule to the Act. The Section s of the Sea Customs Act which are material are contained in Chapter XVII of the Act, which is headed Procedure relating to Offences, Appeals, c, and which includes Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of such goods, the Customs-collector shall return such amount or portion (as the case may be) to the owner of such goods on demand by such owner. 190. If, upon consideration of the circumstances under which any penalty, increased rate of duty or confiscation has been adjudged under this Act by an officer of Customs, the Chief Customs-Authority is of opinion that such penalty, increased rate or confiscation ought to be remitted in whole or in part, or commuted, such Authority may remit the same or any portion thereof, or may, with the consent of the owner of any goods ordered to be confiscated, commute the order of confiscation to a penalty not exceeding the value of such goods. 191. The Local Government may, on the application of any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by any officer of Customs or Chief Customs-Authority, and from which no appeal lies, reverse or modify such decision or order. 193. When a penalty or increased rate of duty is adjudged against any person under this Act by any officer of Customs, such officer, if such penalty or increased rate be not paid, may levy the same by sale of any goods of the said person which may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Officer of Customs directs. 10. The appellant next maintained that the decision or order referred to in Section 188 was not confined to adjudications under Section 182, but included decisions by an officer of Customs as to the rate of duty applicable to particular goods, which necessarily involved the determination of the particular category in the tariff classification into which the goods fell, and that, accordingly, the decision of the Assistant Collector in this case was a decision or order within the meaning of Section 188. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the decisions or orders referred to in Section 188 related only to adjudications under Section 182. This argument of the respondents was not mentioned by the Subordinate Judge, and his judgment does not suggest any doubt of the applicability of Section 188. But it was raised in the High Court, who decided it in favour of the appellant. 11. Their Lordships are of opinion that the High Court were right in deciding that Section 188 is applicable. The words decision or order are wide words, and they appear to be of a more general nature than the adjudications referred to in Section 182, which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstruction of Section 188 is confirmed by a consideration of the provisions of the Act of 1863. The material provisions of the latter Act are as follows:- VI. If any dispute shall arise between any Officer of Customs, and any Master or Commander of a vessel, or importer, exporter, owner, or consignee of goods, or agent, or other person, in respect to any matter (not specially provided for by any law for the time being in force) relating to the importation, exportation, or ware-housing of any goods, or to the levy of any Duty or penalty thereon, or to any seizure or forfeiture thereof, the Chief Customs-authority of the Presidency or place in which such dispute shall have arisen shall settle the same, subject to an appeal to the Local Government, acting under the general instructions of the Governor-General of India in Council. CLXXXIV. If any dispute shall arise as to the proper rate of Duty payable in respect of any goods imported into, or exported from any Port in British India, the importer, exporter, owner, or consignee of such goods, or his agent, shall deposit in the handa of the Officer in charge of the Customs House at the Port of importation or exportation respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 184 under Miscellaneous Provisions ; and the other four Section s under Offences and Penalties. In their Lordships' opinion, it is clear that the provisions of Section 6 and of Section 220 are both now incorporated in Section 188 of the later Act, the subject-matter of the appeal being altered from an award to a decision or order, and the heading of the chapter being altered to Procedure relating to Offences, Appeals, etc. Section 184 of the 1863 Act is reproduced in Section 189, while Section 221 is reproduced as Section 186 of the 1878 Act, before Section 188, and Section 223 reappears as Section 190 of the later Act. 15. The decision of the Assistant Collector therefore; falls within the terms of Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act of 1878, and the respondents in fact acted on that view, and exercised the right of appeal conferred by that Section and by Section 191. It is now necessary to determine whether the order of the Collector of Customs, dated June 20, 1933, which dismissed the appeal under Section 188, and which was confirmed by the Governor-General in Council on an application under Section 191, excludes the jurisdiction of the civil Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, that the finality clause was not so worded as to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Their Lordships are unable to agree with this distinction. 18. Their Lordships are of opinion that in this case the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is excluded by the order of the Collector of Customs on the appeal under Section 188, and it is unnecessary to consider whether, prior to taking such appeal under Section 188 the respondents would have been entitled to resort to the civil Courts, or whether they would have been confined to the right of appeal under Section 188. 19. The determination of this question must rest on the terms of the particular statute which is under consideration, and decisions on other statutory provisions are not of material assistance, except in so far as general principles of construction are laid down. The main principles to be observed in the present case are to be found in the well-known judgment of Willes J. in The Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford (1859) 6 C. B. (N.S.) 336, 356, which was approved of in the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper, Limited [1919] A.C. 368. The question is whether the present case f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
