- (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of mandamus or prohibition against the Government so as to restrain them from proceeding with demanding a sum of Rs. 37,242/12/- from the petitioner as extra duty.
(2.) THE petitioner is the Afghan Commercial Company, a Company registered under Indian companies Act. This Company deals mainly in export and import of dry fruit. The Company placed orders in Afghanistan for six wagons of dry fruit and the same was despatched and received in India. The Customs Officer assessed the duty leviable under Section 30 (b) of the Sea customs Act and the petitioners paid a duty amounting to Rs. 81)852/13/- on various dates at the end of 1948. The Government realising that assessment had been wrongly made under the provisions of Section 30 {b) while it should have been made under the provisions of Section 30 (a) of the Sea Customs Act issued a demand notice in January 1949 under Section 39 of the Sea customs Act calling upon the petitioner to pay an extra duty of Rs. 47,242/12/ -. Later on, it was realised that there was an arithmetical error in calculation and the duty demanded was reduced to rs. 37,242/12/ -. The Company protested and filed an appeal under Section 188 of the Sea customs Act. This appeal was rejected. The Company then preferred a revision to Government as provided by the Sea Customs Act. This revision was also rejected. The original application was rejected by the Collector, Central Excise, New Delhi, on 26-3-1949, the Central Board of revenue rejected the appeal on 14-8-1950, and the Government of India rejected the revision on the 12-10-1951. Thereupon the Company filed the present application for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court in March 1952.
(3.) THE Government in their reply stated that originally the duty was wrongly levied under the provisions of Section 30 (b), Sea Customs Act, while it should have been levied under the provisions of Section 30 (a) of the Act and that therefore this mistake was one which was covered by the provisions of Section 39, Sea Customs Act, and therefore an order to pay extra duty was properly made under the provisions of the latter section. The Government also stated that the remedies given to the petitioner under the Act were availed of by them. The appeal was properly made by the Company. Every opportunity was given to the Company to lay their case before the appellate authority and their representations were properly taken into consideration. The petitioner Company themselves wrote a letter Exhibit H in which they expressed thankfulness of the courtesy shown and the patient hearing given by the Assistant Collector of customs to the Company's representatives. The Government submit that as the provisions made for the assessment and for the extra demand were provisions which had been invoked by government and the Company had been given all opportunities to place their case both in appeal as well as in revision there was no justification for this Court in issuing either a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition restraining the Government from collecting extra duty. In my opinion the contention of Government is well-founded.;