UNION OF INDIA Vs. A V NARASIMHALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. V. Narasimhalu-hereinafter called "the plaintiff"- imported 43 reels of newsprint 13" width) under a Bill of Entry, dated July 15/07/1954. The width of the newsprint being less than 15" no import duty was payable under the Open General Licence. The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the, commodity imported fell within item 44 of the Customs Tariff and levied a duty of 331% ad Valero. The plaintiff paid the duty under protest, and applied for refund of the duty relying upon a decision of the High court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 402 of 1954, in which it was decided that newsprint of width less then 15" was exempt from duty. This application was rejected. An appeal to the Collector of Customs and a revision application to the central Board of Revenue were unsuccessful. The customs authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the claim not having been made within three months of the date of demand was barred under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.

(2.) The plaintiff then instituted an action in the City Civil court for a decree for Rs. 2,669.62 against the Union of India. The trial court decreed the claim holding that the claim was not barred. In appeal the Principal Judge, City Civil court held that the City Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In so holding-he relied upon the judgment of the Judicial Committee in secretary of State for India v. Mask andco. In Second Appeal, the High court of Madras reversed the judgment of the Principal Judge, City Civil court, and restored the decree passed by the trial court. The Union of India has appealed to this court with special leave.

(3.) It is unnecessary to consider whether the claim is barred under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act, for, in our judgment, the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 188 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, insofar as it is relevant, provides :