COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS Vs. K GANGA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point involved in this appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) granted by the High Court of Madras is a very short one and relates to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction possessed by the High Court in considering the validity of an order of the Customs Authorities interpreting the provisions of the entries in the Tariff Schedule as regards the imposition of duties.

(2.) The respondent imported from Australia a quantity of oats which was described in the indent, contract and shipping documents as "standard feed-oats". The commodity imported consisted of oats in whole grain. The question raised related to the proper classification of the goods imported under the Import Trade Control Schedules current during the period July to December 1952, when the consignment reached India. The controversy centered round the point whether the "feed-oats" fell within item 42 or within item 32 of the Circular. Item 42 ran:

(3.) The respondent who carried on business in fodder under the name and style of Balakrishna Flour Mills placed an order with an Australian firm for the supply of whole grain "feed-oats", without obtaining any licence for the import. The goods arrived in Madras on August 1, 1952, and when the respondent attempted to clear the goods, the Customs Authorities insisted no the production of a licence before he would be permitted to do so. The Assistant Collector held that the goods imported fell within item 32 and as admittedly the respondent held no licence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, covering the import, there had been a contravention of s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3 (2) of the Import and Export Control Act 1947, and so proceeded to deal with the violation under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. He directed the confiscation of the goods and imposed as fine of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of confiscation, if the respondent desired to clear the goods. An appeal filed to the Collector of Customs was rejected and thereafter the respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus under S. 45 of the Specific Relief Act.