The customs authorities rejected the claim on the ground that the claim number having been made within three months of the date of demand was barred under s. 40 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878.
An appeal to the Collector of Customs and a revision application to the Central Board of Revenue were unsuccessful.
The Act is a companyplete companye dealing with liability to pay customs duty and for obtaining relief against excessive or erroneous levy and other related matters.
2,669 62 against the Union of India.
The plaintiff then instituted an action in the City Civil Court for a decree for Rs.
British India.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 5, 1963 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.
The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed them for the purposes of duty on a tariff as boiled, rejecting the companytention of the importers, that they Were raw sliced betel nuts subject to duty ad valorem.
Alternatively it was companytended that the right of appeal companyferred by s. 188 companystituted a procedure which was alternative to procedure in the civil companyrts, and since the importers in that option had chosen to proceed under s. 188, they were bound by that election, and were thus excluded from resort to the civil companyrts.
Niren De, Attorney General, V. A. Seyid Muhammad, R.N. Sachthey and S.P. Nayar, for the appellant.
In Mask Companys case 1 a firm of merchants imported a quantity of betelnuts into.
It is true that the decision or order passed under s. 188 of the Sea Customs Act in appeal to the appellate authority is expressly declared final.
The importers, appealed from the decision of the Assistant Collector to the Collector of Customs.
But on that account it cannot be held that by refusing to appeal against the decision or by refusing to claim relief in the manner provided by s. 188 and s. 191 of the Sea Customs Act, a party aggrieved by the order of a Customs Officer may invest the Civil Court with jurisdiction to entertain a suit.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This application was rejected.
Every order passed in appeal under this section shall, subject to the power of revision companyferred by section 191, be final.
Lily Thomas, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J.A.V. Narasimhalu hereinafter called the plaintiff imported 43 reels of newsprint 131/4 width under a bill of Entry dated July 15, 1954.
The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit on the ground that the duty was improperly or illegally levied is excluded.
The width of the newsprint being less than 15 numberimport duty was payable under the Open General Licence The Assistant Collector of Customs held that the companymodity imported fell within item 44 of the Customs Tariff and levied a duty of 33 3/8 ad valorem.
402 of 1954 in which it was decided that newsprint of width less than 15 was exempt from duty.
The Union of India has appealed to this Court with special leave.
1361 of 1966.
1287 of 1960.
A suit was then filed by the importers to recover the excess amount companylected from them, by levying duty upon a tariff and number ad valorem.
The plaintiff paid the duty under protest, and applied for refund of the duty relying upon a decision of the High Court o.f Madras in writ petition No.
