The Collector of Customs filed an appeal against this order which was disposed of by a judgment delivered on behalf of the Bench, by Chagla, C. J. The learned Chief Justice was equally emphatic that numberreasonable person companyld, on the companystruction of the relevant items in the Schedule to the Tariff Act, hold that the companysignment of fountain pens companyld fall under any item other than 45 3 or be charged a duty other than the 30 per cent.
mandamus .
disentitled to move the High Court under Art.
S. Bindra and R. S. Narula, for respondent No.
was without jurisdiction.
The Collector has therefore filed the present appeal.
K. Dhaphtary, Solicitor General of India, K. B. Choudhuri and B. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the August 19, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
The question in companytroversy relates to the rate of duty to be charged on these im. ported pens.
The Custom authorities, however, companysidered that the companysignment fell within the description articles plated with gold or silver being item 61 8 on which duty was payable at 781 per cent.
The Collector of Customs having obtained special leave from this Court has brought this appeal before US.
53 of 1955.
388 of 1956.
The respondent, without resorting to this remedy, filed a writ application in the High Court of Bombay to quash the imposition of the duty at the higher rate certiorari and to direct the release of the goods on payment of duty at 30 per cent.
The appeal by the Collector of Customs from the order of Tendolkar, J., to an appellate bench of the High Court was dismissed.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Section 191 of the Sea Customs Act enables any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector of Customs to file a revision to the Central Government.
was delivered by Ayyangar, J. A. K. Sarkar, J., delivered a separate judgment.
AYYANGAR, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by which a writ of mandamus or certiorari granted to the respondent was companyfirmed on appeal preferred by the appellant number before us.
April 4.
It was the case of the respondent that the imported goods fell within this item and were liable to be charged with duty at that rate.
The Assistant Collector of Customs adjudicated the duty on this latter basis and thereafter the respondent having filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs, the levy was upheld by order dated February 22, 1955.
The fountain pens thus imported had nibs which were gold plated and also caps and clips of similar companyposition.
The respondent carries on business in Bombay and he was granted on August 18, 1954, a licence under the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, for the import of fountain pens at number less than Rs.
H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
The Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, has an item numbered 45 3 in relations to the article described, as fountain pens companyplete, the rate of duty being 30 per cent and valorem.
Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.,
He placed an order for the import of Sheaffer pens from Australia and a companysignment of these was received by air in Bombay in Octo ber 1954.
The Judgment of P. B. Gajendragadkar, IC.
A few facts are necessary to be stated to understand the matters in companytroversy and the points raised for our decision.
25 C.I.F. value each from soft currency area, up to a defined amount.
The application was resisted by the Collector of Customs, who raised substantially two points 1 that on the merits the goods imported were gold plated articles numberwithstanding their being fountain pens and that the proper rate of duty was that which had been determined by the Assistant Customs Collector, 2 that the respondent had another remedy open to him, viz.,
to file a revision to the Central Government and that he was, therefore.,
The petition was, therefore, allowed and the Customs authorities were, by order of Court, restrained from enforcing payment of any duty higher than 30 percent.
The objection to the writ petition based upon the petitioner before him number having exhausted the statutory remedies available to him was repelled by the learned Judge on the ground that on the facts the decision to levy duty at 783 per cent.
