MASK AND CO Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of excess customs duty paid by the plaintiffs Under protest and raises a question as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with a matter of this kind. This point as to jurisdiction was raised by Issue 3 and was tried as a preliminary issue in the Court below. As the learned Subordinate Judge held against the plaintiffs on this question, he dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. The following are the relevant facts: The plaintiffs are merchants carrying on business in the South Arcot District under the name of "Mask and Co." and towards the end of 1932 and in the course of 1933, they imported several consignments of betelnuts from Java. The consignments were landed in Pondicherry and had to be brought to British India across the land frontier there. To avoid delay in doing so, they put themselves in communication with the customs authorities but as there was a dispute between them as to the correct duty leviable, the plaintiffs paid under protest the higher duty demanded by the authorities and cleared the goods. The Assistant Collector of Customs passed his order on 28 February 1933; and an appeal against it was dismissed by the Collector of Customs on 20 June 1933. The matter was taken to the Government of India in revision but by their order dated 13 August 1933, the Government of India confirmed the Collector's order.

(2.) The point in dispute between the parties was whether the betelnuts imported by the plaintiffs should be treated as falling under the category of "boiled" betelnuts. If they are not, the goods will be liable to duty on an ad valorem basis which works out greatly in the plaintiffs favour as each cwt. was valued by them only at about Rs. 10. The customs authorities were of opinion that the betelnuts should be treated as "boiled, split or sliced" which Under the notification issued under the Tariff Act were liable to duty on a tariff valuation of Rs. 23 per cwt. during the year 1932 and Rs. 16 per cwt. during the year 1933. The plaintiffs produced a certificate from Java that the betelnuts did not undergo any process of boiling; it would also appear that even in India the result of the chemical examination was that they had not been boiled but subjected to some lime process. The Assistant Collector of Customs never, the less took the view that they were liable to be taxed as "boiled". When the matter went before the Collector, he stated that though the betelnuts had not undergone the process of boiling they were known in the trade as boiled ; and as the note in the notification under the Tariff Act prescribed that the various heads in the Tariff should be applied in the light of the ordinary trade description of each article, he held that the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs was right. The plaintiffs challenge the correctness of this view of the Collector. The order of the Government of India in revision was to the effect that the order of the Collector of Customs was correct in law.

(3.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit on the ground that the goods imported by them ought not to have been taxed as boiled betelnuts and that the customs authorities had acted on a wrong interpretation of the Sea Customs Act and the Tariff Act. The objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was stated in paras. 8, 9 and 10 of the written statement to the following effect that the Collector of Customs came to a judicial decision in the matter, that this decision had been confirmed on revision, that these orders are final as a legal adjudication and that their correctness or legality cannot be questioned in a Civil Court. In dealing with the question thus raised it will be convenient to refer at the outset to the cases that have been decided under the Sea Customs Act itself. In the present case, the Act directly applicable is the Land Customs Act of 1924, but Section 9 of that enactment makes various provisions of the Sea Customs Act applicable. As early as in Hari Bhanji V/s. Secy. of State (1882) 4 Mad 344 it was observed by Sir Charles Inns that the corresponding provisions of the Sea Customs Act, 6 of 1863, did not by implication exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in cases like the present. Referring to Secs.218 to 220 of the former Act, the learned Judge held that they only applied to awards of confiscations and forfeitures and duties increased by way of penalty; and as regards Sec. 188 of the Act now in force (namely Act 8 of 1878) the learned Judge said: I do not understand the words decision or order passed by a Custom House Officer in Section 188 of Act 8 of 1878 to refer to executive orders levying duty. In his capacity of levying duty he is simply the executive officer to carry out the Act. The words refer, I think, to judicial order and adjudications Under Secs.182 and 183. But whether they be so restricted or not, I do not think Secs.188 to 192 even by implication, exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts for wrongs done by Custom House Officers, and Section 198 recognizes that there may be suits against them.