9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (12) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f moisture which evaporates after a time. The Indian export duty is 15 per cent to be computed in accordance with Section 30 or 31 of the Sea Customs Act (Act No. 8 of 1878). The shippers have to declare the value at port of the commodity shipped and the Excise Department may or may not accept this valuation. If the valuation is not accepted, then export duty is assessed under Section 30 or 31 as I have already stated. The petitioner-firm declared the value of the first shipment to be Rs. 8,70,130/6/11 and of the second instalment of 500 tons as Rs. 58,069/9/1. The total of these shipments was, therefore, declared at the figure of Rs. 9,28,200/-. This value was not accepted by the Customs Department and the Collector of Customs provisionally assessed the value at the rate of Rs. 127/9/0.per ton and valued the two consignments at Rs. 10,20,525/-. He, therefore, asked the petitioner-firm to pay an excess duty of Rs. 23,491/3/8. This amount was paid by the petitioners under protest and they filed an application for a refund of the excess duty paid. An appeal was preferred to the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, under Section 188. This appeal was transferred for disposal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to explain or rebut the material upon which he had based his order and, in fact, did not even reveal what this material was. His order was not a speaking order, and since an appeal was provided for against his order, the absence of any reasons vitiated the order. 3. When the matter came up before the Central Board of Revenue, the only evidence before it was the declaration of the petitioners regarding the value of the consignments. The Central Board of Revenue, however, saw the report of the Collector and the records which were not available to the petitioners and which they, therefore, could not explain or rebut, and for this reason the order of the Central Board of Revenue was bad in law. 4. The Central Government did not give a hearing to the petitioners before dismissing the revision petition. I may mention here that at the time of shipments samples from the consignments were drawn and these were analysed in order to find out the amount of moisture and the percentage of manganese content. The actual value received by the petitioners from the firm in the United States of America was even less than the amount which they had declared on. The amount received was only Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Government of India dismissing the revision petition is to the following effect :— "The Government of India have carefully considered the revision application made by the petitioners and also all the facts and circumstances of the case but they see no reason to interfere with the order in appeal passed by the Central Board of Revenue, New Delhi." Above this order also there is a note to the effect that the Collector's report and the records of the case were read. It will be seen at once that all the orders, which are being challenged, are not the sort of orders which ought to be passed in quasi-judicial proceedings. The contention of the respondents is that proceedings under the Sea Customs Act are not quasi-judicial proceedings and that, therefore, the orders, even though they do not discuss the material or give reasons for the conclusions arrived at, are perfectly valid. The general questions requiring our consideration, therefore, are two :— (1) Are proceedings under the Sea Customs Act in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings; and (2) Even if they are administrative proceedings, should the various authorities concerned give reasons for the conclusions arrived at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come Tax, Madras, 1939 I.T.R. 21, which the following principles were laid down :— "Though there is nothing in the Act which imposes a duty on an income-tax officer, who makes an assessment under Section 23(3) in such circumstances to disclose to the assessee the material on which he proposes to act, natural justice requires that he should draw the assessee's attention to it and give him an opportunity to show that the officer's information is wrong. He should also indicate in his order the material on which he has made his assessment as an order under Section 23(3) is appealable." 4.The same opinion was expressed in a somewhat more elaborate form in Seth Gurmukh Singh and another v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, 1944 I.T.R. 393. Headnote (2) of the report contains the decision of a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court accurately and may be quoted — "While proceeding under sub-section (3) of Section 23 the Income-tax Officer is not bound to rely on such evidence produced by the assessee as he considers to be false; If he proposes to make an estimate in disregard of the evidence, oral or documentary, led by the assessee, he should in fairness disclose to the assessee the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector was directed to make a fresh statement in the light of the observations made by Chagla C.J. Therefore, a distinction in form was made by the Bombay High Court between proceedings under Section 23(3) of the Income-tax Act and proceedings under the Sea Customs act; in substance, the requirements of natural justice were to be observed in both cases. I may also refer to a decision of the King's Bench Division in a matter which arose out of the Housing Act of 1930 — Errington and Others v. Minister of Health, (1935) I.K.B. 249. It was held — "If the Minister holds a private inquiry to which the owners are not invited or takes into consideration ex parte statements with which the owners have had no opportunity of dealing he is not acting in accordance with correct principles of justice, and his confirmation of the clearance order would not be within the powers conferred upon him by the Act, and the owners would be entitled as being persons aggrieved to have the confirmation order quashed." A mere perusal of the three orders which are being impugned in this case shows that they do not comply with the requirements of natural justice. We are concerned here more with the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
