An appeal was perferred therefrom to a Division Bench and the learned Judged allowed the appeal and issued a direction prohibiting the Collector and his subordinates from companylecting or taking steps to recover the fines and penalties imposed on the respondent.
It is the companyrectness of this order of the Division Bench that is challenged in this appeal.
Ganapathy Iyer, M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondent.
Appeal from the judgment, and order dated April 6, 1956, of the Madras High Court in 0.
The respondent who carried on business in fodder under the name and style of Balakrishna Flour Mills placed an order with an Australian firm for the supply of whole grain feed oats without obtaining any licence for the import.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, V. D. Mahajan and P. D. Menon, for the appellant.
42 and had received an affirmative answer, The learned Single Judge who heard the application dismissed it on the ground that the order of the Customs Authorities classifying uncrushed feeds oats as grain and number as fodder companyld number be said to be either perverse or malafide and that companysequently the Court companyld number interfere with the decision of the authorities.
In his affidavit in support of the application the respondent besides companytending that oats in full grain fell within the head fodder under item 42, set out earlier, because 1 he had imported them for being made available solely for feeding race horses at Bangalore, 2 that in South India oats was number used as human foods but only as feed for horses, and 3 that in any event, he had been misled by an answer that he received from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Madras of whom he had made an enquiry as to whether feed oats companyld be imported under an open general licence under serial No.
The goods arrived in Madras on August 1, 1952 and when the respondent attempted to clear the goods, the Customs Authorities insisted on the production of a licence before he would be permitted to do so.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
the goods imported fell within item 32 and as admittedly the respondent held numberlicence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Exports, Madras companyering the import, there had been a companytravention of a. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with s. 3 2 of the Import Export Control Act, 1947 and so proceeded to deal with the violation under s. 167 8 of the Sea Customs Act.
An appeal filed to the Collector of Customs was rejected and thereafter the respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus under s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AYYANGAR, J. The point involved in this appeal which companyes before us on a certificate of fitness under Art.
568 of 1960.
147 of 1953.
The Assistant Collector hold that.
respondent desired to clear the goods.
April 19.
The respondent imported from Australia a quantity of oats which was described in the indent, companytract and shipping documents as standard feed oats.
He directed the companyfiscation of the good sand imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/ in lieu of companyfiscation, if the.
133 1 e granted by the High, Court of Madras is a very short one and relates to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction posses sed by the High Court in companysidering the validity of an order of the Customs Authorities interpreting the provisions of the entries in the Tariff Schedule as regards the imposition of duties.
