- (1.) These are two writ appeals which raise a common question of law dealt with by G.K. Mitter, J. in two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution disposed of by one judgment by which they were dismissed and the relative rules for mandamus, certiorari and for other reliefs were discharged. The two appeals are accordingly disposed of by this judgment.
(2.) The question raised is whether the provisions contained in Sections 29A and 29B of the Sea Customs Act, are complementary or whether they are mutually exclusive. It arises between the same Parties in respect of two consignments of woollen fabrics imported into this country from Hongkong by the appellant Messrs. Agarwal Trading Corporation, a registered partnership firm carrying on business in textile goods. The business consists in importing woollen fabrics from abroad, under the Export Promotion Scheme and after processing them in exporting the finished goods out of India. In one case the consignment consisted of four packages and in the other of three, all containing woollen fabrics. The two consignments were brought into the country by two ships, Bradeveratt and Rutheverett. The ships arrived within a few days of each other and bills of entry were filed in respect of the two consignments on the same date. The value of the consignment in one case was declared at Rs. 7,052.50 np. for which the appellant was assessed to duty by the Customs Authorities at Rs. 6,454.31 np. The value declared in respect of the other consignment was Rs. 9,404 for which the appellant firm was assessed to duty at Rs. 8,602. The assessments in the two cases were made approximately at about the same time. In respect of one consignment the Customs Authorities recorded that the assessment had been in order and therefore directed the goods to pass. In the other case a similar note appears to have been made by which the assessment was held to have been in order. The consignments not having actually been taken delivery of for some reason or other, the relevant papers were placed before the Appraiser, Special Section, for further scrutiny into the declarations of value of the consignments in question. Meanwhile samples had been taken from the consignments and eventually orders were passed purporting to have been made under Section 29B of the Sea Customs Act by which the assessments already made were treated to have been made on a provisional basis in terms of the section and the Rules thereunder and the appellant was permitted to take delivery of the consignments on furnishing additional bank security to the extent of 20 per cent of duty for a period of two months or in lieu thereof, on deposit of the equal amount in cash. These orders appear to have been made in one case towards the end of January, 1960 and in the other in February, 1960. Apparently the Customs Authorities required further information on the question of valuation, quantity and description of the consignment and the appellant was required to produce the manufacturers' price list which they failed to do. Request appears to have been made by the appellant to Eastern Interprisers of Hongkong who was the exporter of the consignments for the price list. The latter declined to supply the same on the ground that it would be against all notions of commercial practice to disclose the manufacturers' prices, but they offered at the same time to bear the expenses of travel to and from Hongkong of any responsible officer of Customs in order to enable him to make such enquiries as he might deem necessary to be made in connection with the assessments. This request was presumably not acceded to by the Customs and the appellant took the matter to the Bharat Chamber of Commerce of which they were a member firm for interceding on their behalf in order to procure an early release of the consignments. In spite of the Chamber's intercession the Customs Authorities insisted on payment of the extra duty when the appellant demanded Justice by requiring them to cancel the relevant orders. This was followed by applications in Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) Upon two Rules Nisi being issued, the Customs contested the proceedings and on their behalf an affidavit-in- opposition affirmed by Sri Jyotirmoy Dutta, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) was used. The affidavit- in-opposition stated that the assessments in these cases in respect of the two consignments had initially been made under Section 29A of the Sea Customs Act, but later the Customs decided to proceed under Section 29B pending production of proof as regards the real value of the consignments. Let the Assistant Collector of Customs Speak for himself. "I say that the bill of entry was filed on 8th January 1960 in the Import Department of the Customs House when it was noted. On 9th January 1960 the scrutinising Appraiser returned the bill of entry to the petitioner with the order to produce Indent, Acceptance, Bank Draft, Bank Memo, Marine Insurance Certificate, full correspondence leading to the finalisation of the order and shipment and to produce shipment sample. Between 9th January 1960 and 18th January 1960 the petitioner kept the relative bill of entry with itself without any further action. The said bill of entry was again produced to the scrutinising Appraiser with the aforesaid documents on 18th January 1960. On the said date the goods were assessed to duty prior to their examination on the basis of statements made by the petitioner in the bill of entry under permission from the Principal Appraiser, a Customs Collector, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under s. 29A Sea Customs Act. In addition the petitioner made the following declaration on the bill of entry. It is hereby declared that the acceptance of a deposit of duty calculated on the declared value and description of the goods specified in this bill of entry before examination and assessment shall not be deemed to imply acceptance by the Government of such declared value and description to affect the rights of Government under the Sea Customs Act until the Appraising Department shall have finally accepted such declared value and description." Again "I say that subsequent to the assessments and on examination of the goods it was discovered that the statements made by the petitioner in the Bill of Entry regarding valuation was not true. As such the Bill of Entry was sent to the Appraiser, Special Section, for ascertaining valuation and for consequential reassessment as authorised by Section 29A of the Sea Customs Act. The petitioner was also informed that the Bill of Entry had been called for verification of the real value". Then again "Since further proof from Hongkong could not be procured expeditiously and in order to avoid undue detention of the goods, the Customs Collector (Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement) directed that the duty leviable on such goods may, pending the production of such proof, assessed at the time of reassessment in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Section 29B of the Sea Customs Act and the Rules made thereunder.";