- (1.) This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated January 4, 1961, passed by Datta, J. dismissing the Plaintiff-Appellant's suit bearing No. 4334 of 1952 filed in the Original Side of this Court, inter alia, for declarations that certain orders and decisions made by the Defendants-Respondents assessing certain goods exported by the Plaintiff-Appellant to be 'hessian' and not 'sacking within the meaning of the Indian Tariff Act read with the Sea Customs Act and the demand of export duty in respect of the said goods on the aforesaid basis of assessment are null and void; for a declaration that the Plaintiff-Appellant was not liable to pay to the Defendants a sum of Rs. 45,67,530-1-0 or any part thereof wrongly assessed as export duty; and a decree for the refund of the said sum of Rs. 45,67,503-1-0.
(2.) The Plaintiff was at the relevant time a shipper of, inter alia, jute carpet yarn. The said goods, according to the Plaintiff, had all along been, till the impugned orders were passed, assessed as 'sacking' under the Indian Tariff Act, 1935 and the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Between June, 1950 and January, 1951, the Plaintiff shipped from Calcutta several consignments of the said carpet yarn (particulars whereof have been set out in Schedule 'A' annexed to the plaint filed by the Plaintiff). The said goods were, according to the Plaintiff, illegally and wrongfully assessed as 'hessians'. The Defendants-Respondents illegally and wrongfully demanded the duties so assessed as mentioned hereinbefore on the said goods and threatened to take proceedings against the Plaintiff-Appellant under the Sea Customs Act. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said orders of assessment in respect of the said goods mentioned in Schedule 'A' to the plaint but the Defendant No. 2 upheld the said order of assessment. The Plaintiff's further case is that pending the said appeal the Plaintiff exported several other consignments of jute carpet yarn from Calcutta (particulars of the said goods have been set out in Schedule 'C' to the plaint). The Plaintiff states that by reason of the act and/or conduct and/or directions of the Customs authorities to declare the goods in the said consignments as 'hessians', the Plaintiff was compelled to pay and did pay or allowed the Defendants to debit the Plaintiff with duty at the rate ruling for hessians for an additional sum of Rs. 32,50,7824-0. This the Plaintiff did under the coercion and without prejudice to its right and contention that the said goods were 'sacking' and not 'hessians'. In the suit the Plaintiff seeks to set aside the aforesaid orders of assessment and recover the said aggregate sum of Rs. 45,67,503-1-0.
(3.) The Defendants filed their written statements. In the written statement die Defendants denied that the said assessments and orders of assessment were illegal or ultra vires or that any of the said orders or decisions were null and void. In any event, the orders of assessment, according to the Defendants, were executive or administrative acts and could not be challenged in the present suit. The Defendants state that the goods exported by the Plaintiff were 'hessians' within the meaning of the Indian Tariff Act and Sea Customs Act. The Defendants denied that there was any violation of natural justice. The Defendants finally contended that this Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as the Sea Customs Act was a self contained code and the method of redress of any alleged injury for action taken under the said Act is indicated by the said Act.;