Appeal No 344 of 1967
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 8 1966 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No 17 of 1964
V A Seyid Muhammad and section P Nayar for the appellant
section J Sorabjee J R Gagrat and B R Agarwala for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
This appeal by certificate arises from the res pondent s suit in respect of fines and penalties recovered from them by the Collector of Customs Bombay for the alleged contravention of section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 and
section 1678 of the 
The respondents held an import licence dated July 10 1956 permitting them to import parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters as per appendix XXVI of the Import Policy Book for July December 1956
Under the said licence the respondents imported certain goods which arrived in two consignments each containing 17 cases by two different ships
According to the respondents the goods so imported by them were motor cycle parts which their licence authorised them to import
The Customs authorities on the contrary
held on the examination of the goods that they constituted 51 sets of Rixe Mopeds complete in a knocked down condition
The Deputy Collector of Customs thereupon held an enquiry in pursuance of two show cause notices issued by him
The result of the enquiry was an order under which the Deputy Collector directed confiscation of the said goods with an option to the respondents to pay certain sums in lieu of confiscation and also personal penalties
That order was passed on the basis that the goods imported were not parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters permissible under entry 295 of the Schedule to the 560 Import Control Order but were motor cyclesscooters in completely knocked down condition prohibited under remark II against entry 294 a licence in respect of goods covered by it would authorise import of motor cycles and Scooters
The order of the Deputy Collector dated November 19 1957 reads as under On examination of the goods and scrutiny of the documents relating to the Bills of Entry stated above it was ascertained that Ms Tarachand Gupta  Bros had imported 51 sets of Rixe Mopeds complete except tyres tubes and saddles in a knocked down condition
The total number of consignments covered by the aforesaid two Bills of Entry were
sufficient to give exactly 51 sets complete Rixe Mopeds  except for tyres tubes and saddles which would in any case have required a separate licence
The packing was also such as to show that those were nothing but Mopeds in a disassembled condition since each of the cases contains components relating to three mopeds
Moreover it was found that major components such as the frames completely fitted with electrical wires and control cables and grips had been imported in equal numbers
All these went to show that the goods were not imported as spare parts but as complete vehicles in a knocked down condition
The goods were therefore considered to be correctly classifiable under item 752 of the ICT corresponding to section No 294 IV of the ITO Schedule
The licence under which clearance was sought could not therefore be accepted
 The Deputy Collector rejected the respondents  contention that the two consignments which arrived in two different ships at different dates should be viewed separately that the machines were incomplete as they were without tyres tubes and saddles and therefore they could not be said to constitute motor cycles in knocked down condition
He held on the other hand that though the goods were not in completely knocked down condition it made no difference as the tyres tubes and saddles were easily obtainable in India and their absence did not prevent the machines being otherwise complete
He also found that there was a trade practice under which traders were supplying motor cycles without tyres tubes and saddles unless the purchaser specially asked for these parts
According to him the goods could not be regarded as spare parts but were Mopeds in disassembled condition
In the suit filed by the respondents in the High Court against the said order the Trial Judge held on the authority of the 561 Secretary of State vs Mask  Co1 that an order of a statutory tribunal such as the Collector of Customs under the  which the statute makes final subject of course to an appeal provided under it can be set aside in a suit before a civil court on two grounds only namely where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or where the tribunal has failed to act in conformity with the fundamental rules of judicial procedure
He rejected the respondents  contention that the case fell within the first ground and held that however erroneous the Collector s decision might be since it was within his jurisdiction to decide whether the goods fell under one entry or the other a civil court had no jurisdiction to grant relief
He also held that the order could not be said to be without or in excess of jurisdiction and was therefore not a nullity
The order consequently required to be set aside if the respondents were to have any relief and therefore article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied
On that basis he held the respondents  suit to be time barred and dismissed it
We may at this stage mention that in a similar matter involving import of spare parts and accessories under a licence relating to entry 295 the Collector s order on the basis that the goods fell under entry 294 as the spare parts in question could it all the different indents were taken together constituted auto cycles in completely knocked down condition was held to be bad as the Collector s approach to the matter was wholly wrong by a Division Bench of the same High Court in D P Anand vs Ms T M Thakore  Co2 According to that judgment the jurisdiction of the Collector was to ascertain whether the goods such as they were were properly imported under the licence relating to goods under entry 295 ie whether they were spare parts and accessories and not to go further and find out whether they would when put together constitute auto cycles in completely knocked down condition as envisaged by entry 295 and therefore the order was amenable to interference by the High Court
The Trial Judge held on the authority of this judgment that on merits the Collector of Customs was in error in holding the respondents guilty of importing goods not covered by the licence held by them and that the Collector would have been bound by that judgment had it been delivered before he passed the impugned order
He however was of the view that whereas the High Court in D P Anand s case2 interfered with the order in its writ jurisdiction
a suit could not lie as the impugned order was within the jurisdiction of the Collector and the mere fact that he applied a wrong entry did not invest the civil court with the jurisdiction to entertain a suit and set aside such an order
1 1940 67 IA 222 2Civil appeal No 4 of 1959 decided on August 17 1960 HC 562 The Letters Patent Bench of the High Court following the judgment in Anand s case1 agreed with the Trial Judge that on merits the Collector was in error
Following that judgment the Bench also held that the Collector s jurisdiction was limited to ascertain whether or not the goods imported by the respondents were spare parts and accessories covered by entry 295 in respect of which they undoubtedly held the licence 
and therefore he could not have lumped together the two consignments which though imported under one licence arrived separately and were received on different dates and could not have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs ie the respondents herein had imported 51 Rixe mopeds in a completely knocked down condition
The Bench also held that upon the principle laid down in Anand s case1 it was not for the Collector to ascertain whether the goods if assembled together would constitute 51 Rixe Mopeds in CKD condition The respondents were entitled to import the said goods and therefore section 1678 of the did not apply and the respondents consequently could not have been held guilty of breach either of that section or section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act
The Bench also held that the decision of this Court in Girdharilal Bansidhar vs Union of India2 did not overrule but only distinguished the judgment in Anand s case1 and therefore the binding force of that decision remained unshaken
Regarding the jurisdiction of civil courts the Division Bench held that where the question is simply whether one or the other entry applies and the tribunal to which jurisdiction is entrusted in that behalf decides it erroneously even then its order made final by the statute conferring such jurisdiction cannot be made the subject matter of a suit
On the other hand where its jurisdiction is confined to see whether the importation is under a particular entry or not but while deciding such a question the tribunal takes into account extraneous considerations such as an entry which has no bearing upon the question the case would fall outside the ambit of the powers of th statutory authority
The question in other words would then be whether the tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore acted in non compliance with the provision of the statute under which it has to decide the question
The Division Bench deprecated the attempt on the part of the Collector in considering the two consignments together and making out a case that the two when put together would make it possible to regard the goods as  Rixe Mopeds in CKD condition
Such an attempt the Bench observed was a new classification conjured up by the authorities to rope in the imports as being illegal which according to the terms of the licence and entry No 295 would be clearly legal
Lastly the Division Bench disagreed with the Trial Judge who had held that the article 1 CA No 4 of 1959 decided on Aug 17 1960 HC 2  563 in the Limitation Act applicable was article 14 on the ground that once it was accepted that the order was in excess of jurisdiction it was a nullity and therefore there was no question of its having to be set aside
Following A Venkata Subba Rao vs Andhra Pradesh 1 it held that the suit fell under article 62 and therefore was within time
Counsel for the Union of India challenged the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench and urged that the had clearly vested in the Collector the authority to decide whether the goods in question fell within entry 295 or not and for which the respondents had been granted the licence
His decision subject of course to an appeal and revision provided under the Act being final could not be challenged in a suit save under the well recognized exceptions that his decision was not in compliance with the provisions of the Act or that he had failed to follow the fundamental principles of judicial procedure
The present case according to him was one of importing Rixe Mopeds in CKD condition not permissible either under entry 295 or entry 294 and therefore was a case where the importermisusing his licence had attempted to do indirectly what he could not do directly
There was according to him no question of the Collector acting in excess of his jurisdiction or in non compliance with the provisions of the Act and therefore the Trial Judge was right in holding that no suit lay against his action
Before we proceed to consider these contentions it is expedient first to look at the provisions of the relevant law
Under section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 the Central Government by an order can provide for prohibiting restricting or otherwise controlling inter alia the import of goods of any specified description and all goods to which any such order applies are deemed to be goods of which the import has been prohibited by the and all the provisions of that Act are to have effect accordingly
The Imports Control Order 1955 passed under the power reserved under the Act by cl
3 thereof provides that no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Sch
I thereto except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Central Government or by an officer specified in Sch
Sub cl
2 of cl
3 provides that if it is found that the goods imported under a licence do not conform to the description given in such a licence under which they are claimed to have been imported then without prejudice to any action that may be taken against the licensee under the in respect of such importation the licence may be treated as having been utilised for importing the said goods
1  564 Entries  294 and 295 of section II of of Sch
I of the Import Trade Control Policy for the period July December 1956 are in this connection the relevant entries
Entry 294 deals with import of motorcycles and scooters
Remark ii in its column No 6 lays down that Licences granted under this item will not be valid for the import of motor cyclesscooters in a completely knocked down condition
Remark iii however provides that applications from approved manufacturers for import of motor cycles scooters in CKD condition will be considered ad hoc by the Chief Controller Imports in consultation with Development Wing
Entry 295 deals with Articles other than rubber tyres and tubes adapted for use as parts and accessories of motor cycles and motor scooters except such articles as are adapted for use as parts and accessories of motor cars
Entry 41 in deals with import of rubber tyres and tubes and other manufactures of rubber not otherwise specified
Section 1678 of the provides that goods shall liable to confiscation if the goods the importation of which is for the time being prohibited or restricted by or under Ch
IV are imported contrary to such prohibition or restriction and any person concerned in any such importation shall be liable to penalty prescribed therein
Section 188 of the Act makes an order
passed in appeal against the Collector s order final subject only to the power of revision under section 191
The position then is under entry 294 above cited import under the requisite licence of motor cycles and scooters was permitted
However a licence permitting import of motor cycles and scooters could not be used for import of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Even then the prohibition was not absolute because approved manufacturers could apply and get licences to import motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition albeit on an ad hoc basis
It is thus clear that entry 294 deals with the import of motor cycles and scooters and the import though only by approved manufacturers of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The entry is complete in itself so far as import of motor cycles and scooters complete and assembled and also in CKD condition is concerned
The words completely knocked down condition in the entry are not used in any technical sense and therefore must be given their ordinary dictionary meaning ie made or constructed so as to be capable of being knocked down or taken apart as for transportation in parts ready to be assembled
see Webster s New International Dictionary Vol
P 1371 and also Words and Phrases
Permanent Edition Vol 23 p 560
Under entry 295 except for rubber tyres and tubes for whose import a separate licence could be obtained under entry 41 of 565 Part V there are no limitations as to the number or kind of parts or accessories which can be imported under a licence obtained in respect of the goods covered thereunder
Prima facie an importer could import all the parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters and it would not be a ground to say that he has committed breach of entry 295 or the licence in respect of the goods described therein that the parts and accessories imported if assembled would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
There are no remarks against entry 295 as there are against entry 294 that a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 would not be valid for import of spares and accessories which if assembled would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Apart from that the goods in question did not admittedly contain tyres tubes and saddles so that it was impossible to say that they constituted motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The first two could not be imported and were in fact not imported because that could not be done under the licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 which expressly prohibited their import and a separate licence under entry 41 of Part V would be necessary
The third namely saddles were not amongst the goods imported
No doubt there was firstly a finding by the Collector that a trade practice prevailed under which motor cycles and scooters without tyres tubes and saddles could be sold
Secondly the tyres and tubes could be had in the market here and so also saddles so that if an importer desired he could have sold these goods as motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The argument was that since there was a restriction in entry 294 against imports of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition the importer could not be allowed to do indirectly what he could not do directly
The argument apparently looks attractive
But the question is what have the respondents done indirectly what they could not have done directly
In the absence of any restrictions in entry 295 namely that a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 would not be valid for import of parts and accessories which when taken together would make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition the respondents could import under their licence all kinds and types of parts and accessories
Therefore the mere fact that the goods imported by them were so complete that when put together would make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition would not amount to a breach of the licence or of entry 295
Were that to be so the position would be anomalous as aptly described by the High Court
Suppose that an importer were to import equal number of various parts from different countries under different indents and at different times
and the goods were to reach here in different consignments and on different dates instead of two consignments from the same 566 country as in the present case
If the contention urged before us were to be correct the Collector can treat them together and say that they would constitute motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Such an approach would mean that there is in entry 295 a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters
Under that contention even if the importer had sold away the first consignment or part of it it would still be possible for the Collector to say that had the importer desired it was possible for him to assemble all the parts and make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Surely such a meaning has not to be given to entry 295 unless there is in it or in the licence a condition that a licensee is not to import parts in such a fashion that his consignments different though they may be when put together would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Such a condition was advisedly not placed in entry 295 but was put in entry 294 only
The reason was that import of both motor cycles and scooters as also parts and accessories thereof was permitted of the first under entry 294 and of the other under entry 295
A trader having a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 294 could import assembled motor cycles and scooters but not those vehicles in CKD condition unless he was a manufacturer and had obtained a separate licence therefor from the Controller of Imports who as aforesaid was authorised to issue such a licence on an ad hoe basis
Thus the res triction not to import motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition was against an importer holding a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 294 under which he could import complete motor cycles and scooters and not against an importer who had a licence to import parts and accessories under entry 295
If Dr Syed Mohamad s contention were to be right we would have to import remark ii against entry 294 into entry 295 a thing which obviously is not permissible while construing these entries
Further such a condition if one were to be implied in entry 295 would not fit in as it is a restriction against import of motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition and not their parts and accessories
There is therefore no question of a licensee under entry 295 doing indirectly what he was not allowed to do directly
What he was not allowed to do directly was importing motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition under a licence under which he could import complete motor cycles and scooters only
That restriction as already observed applied to a licensee in respect of goods described in entry 294 and not a licensee in respect of goods covered by entry 295
The result is that when the Collector examines goods imported under a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 what he has to ascertain is whether the goods are parts and accessories 567 and not whether the goods though parts and accessories are so comprehensive that if put together would constitute motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Were he to adopt such an approach he would be acting contrary to and beyond entry 295 under which he had to find out whether the goods imported were of the description in that entry
Such an approach would in other words be in non compliance of entry 295
The question then is whether such a reading of the two entries is in any way contrary to the decisions of this Court
In Girdharilal Bansidhar1 the principle laid down was that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the correctness of the decision of the authorities under the on appreciation of entries in the Hand Book or in the Indian Tariff Act
In that case the appellant who had a licence to import iron and steel bolts nuts etc imported nuts and bolts which were the components of Jackson Type Single bolt oval plate belts fasteners which were described in the bill of entry as store bolts and nuts 
The Customs found that these were in reality the actual components of Jackson Type Single belt oval plate belts fasteners import whereof was totally prohibited
The Collector while arriving at his decision took into account also the fact that washers the third component of the prohibited article were imported by a firm owned by the appellant s relations
On these facts this Court held 1 that importing components of a prohibited article was importing the prohibited article 2 that the evidence that washers imported by the relations of the appellant was considered by the Collector as evidence to confirm his conclusion that the nuts and bolts imported by him were in reality the components of the prohibited article and 3 that where the decision of the statutory authority is whether an item falls under one or the other entry the High Court could not interfere with that decision on the groun d that it is erroneous
That is because when a statute confers power on an authority to decide a particular question its decision even if it is erroneous is still within its jurisdiction
What needs to be observed in that decision is that the Collector s decision was under which of the two competing entries the imported items fell that is whether the goods were bolts and nuts or were components of the prohibited article
And the Court there laid down the well established principle that the High Court under article 226 could not interfere with the decision of the authority upon whom jurisdiction to decide the question whether the goods fell under one or the other entry was conferred on the ground that it was erroneous
Further the nuts and bolts imported by the appellant could only be used as Components of the prohibited article
In other words the import was of parts of the 1  568 prohibited article and therefore of the prohibited article
It was therefore that the Court held 1 that the Customs  decision was not incorrect and 2 that the importer could not be allowed to do indirectly what he could not do directly
It will be noticed that the Bombay decision in D P Anand s case1 was not dissented from but only distinguished and therefore the High Court in the present case was justified in following it
It is true however that counsel for the appellant there relied on that decision in support of his proposition that a ban on a completed article cannot be read as a ban on the importation of its constituents which when assembled would result in the prohibited article and this Court pointed out in answer that in D P Anand s case1 the imported components could not have when assembled made up the completed article because of the lack of certain essential parts which admittedly were not available in India and could not be imported
The real distinction however between the two cases was that the decision of the Collector in D P Anand s case1 was not as was the decision in Girdharilal s case 2 under which of the two competing entries the imported goods fell but that the imported goods in question if assembled together would not be the goods covered by the entry and therefore not the goods in respect of which the licence was granted
Further the articles in question even when assembled together were not prohibited articles as in Girdharilal s case 2
Girdhari lal s case2 is clearly distinguishable because it is not as if motor cycles and scooters are prohibited articles as was the case there
The restriction is not against licensees importing motor cycles and scooters under entry 294 and parts and accessories under entry 295 but against the licensees under entry 294 importing motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The question in the instant case was not under which of the two entries 294 or 295 the goods fell but whether the goods were parts and accessories covered by entry 295
In Firm Illuri Subbayya Chetty  Sons vs Andhra Pradesh  3 the suit filed by the appellants was for recovery of a sum paid by way of purchase tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act 1939
The cause of action was that the amount had been illegally recovered
Relying on section 18A of the Act this Court held that the expression any assessment made under this Act in that section was wide enough to cover all assessments made by the appropriate authorities under the Act and even if an assessment was incorrect so long as it was within the jurisdiction of the authorities it was not non compliance of the statute and therefore was not covered by the principle laid down in the case of Mask  Co4 The Court observed 1 CA 4 of 1959 dt
Aug 17 1960HC 2  3 1964 1SCR 752
4 1948 LR 67 IA 222
569 There is no justification for the assumption that if a decision has been made by a taxing authority under the provisions of a taxing statute its validity can be chal lenged by a suit on the ground that it is incorrect on merits and as such it can be claimed that the provisions of the said statute have not been compiled with This principle was repeated in Dhulabliai vs Madhya Pradesh1 where it was held that where a statute gives finality to the orders of the special tribunal the civil court s jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit ie to correct an assessment which is erroneous
The Court also pointed out that in the Firm Illuri Subbayya Chetty  Sons  case 2 it had been said that Mask  Co s case3 was an authority for the proposition that non compliance with the provisions of the statute would render the entire proceedings before the authority illegal and without jurisdiction
The case of Panthulu vs Andhra Pradesh 4 illustrates as to when an authority can be said to have acted in non compliance with the provisions of the statute under which it derives its authority
Section 32 of the Madras Estates Land Reduction of Rent Act XXX of 1947 authorised the State Government to fix the rates of rent in respect of each class of ryoti land in each village in the State after considering the recommendations of the special officer and the remarks of the Board of Revenue
Section 81 provided that no order passed under section 32 could be challenged in a civil court
The suit filed by the appellants disputed the legality of the notification reducing the rates of land in respect of the dry delta ryoti lands in a village on the ground that the class of land had been determined to be delta ryoti lands on the basis only of the settlement register which did not contain any entry with respect to the village in question that the settlement register could not be treated as conclusive and that proper factual enquiry was necessary Me High Court held that the suit was not main tainable by reason of section 81
Dua J speaking for the Bench
held that under section 2 the special officer had to determine the average rate of cash rent per acre for each class of ryoti land such as wet dry or garden Ibis could only be done on relevant material
The special officer however had based his determination on a report of his assistant who had considered the entry in the settlement register of another village
That meant that the special officer had made his determination on irrelevant evidence ie on the register which did not contain any data with respect to the land in the village in question
On these facts he hold that the 1  3 1948 LR67 IA 222
2  4 1970 2 SCR714 570 determination by the special officer was based on no evidence with the result that it was in violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure
A fortiori the order of the Government made under section 32 on the basis of the recommendations of the special officer was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and was therefore outside the purview of section 32 and consequently section 81 was inapplicable
Thus sec
81 was held not to apply because the Government s determination could not be said to be one under section 3 2
The words a decision or order passed by an officer of Customs under this Act used in section 188 of the must mean a real and not a purported determination
A determination which takes into consideration factors which the officer has no right to take into account is no determination
This is also the view taken by courts in England
In such cases the provision excluding jurisdiction of civil courts cannot operate so as to exclude an inquiry by them
In Anisminic Ltd vs The Foreign Compensation Commission1 Lord Reid at pages 213 and 214 of the Report stated as follows  It has sometimes been said that it is only where a tribunal acts without jurisdiction that its decision is a nullity
But in such cases the word jurisdiction has been used in a very wide sense and I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to use the term except in the narrow and original sense of the tribunal being entitled to enter on the enquiry in question
But there are many cases where although the tribunal had jurisdiction to enter on the enquiry it has done or failed to do something in the course of the enquiry which is of such a nature that its decision is a nullity
It may have given its decision in bad faith 
It may have made a decision which it had no power to make
It may have failed in the course of the enquiry to comply with the requirements of natural justice
It may in perfect good faith have misconstrued the provisions giving it power to art so that it failed to deal with the question remitted to it and decided some question which was not remitted to it
It may have refused to take into account something which it was required to take into account
Or it may have based its decision on some matter which under the provisions setting it up it had no right to take into account
I do not intend this list to be exhaustive
But if it decides a question remitted to it for decision without committing any of these errors it is as much entitled to decide that question wrongly as it is to decide it rightly 1 19691 All ER 208
571 To the same effect are also the observations of Lord Pearce at page 233
R vs Fulham Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal1 is yet another decision of a tribunal properly embarking on an enquiry that is within its jurisdiction but at the end of it making an order in excess of its jurisdiction which was held to be anullity though it was an order of the kind which it was entitled to make in a proper case
The principle thus is that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not to be readily inferred
Such exclusion however is inferred where the statute gives finality to the order of the tribunal on which it confers jurisdiction and provides for adequate remedy to do what the courts would normally do in such a proceeding before it
Even where a statute gives finality such a provision does not exclude cases where the provisions of the particular statute have not been complied with or the tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure The word jurisdiction has both a narrow and a wider meaning
In the sense of the former it means the authority to embark upon an enquiry in the sense of the latter it is used in several aspects one of such aspects being that the decision of the tribunal is in non compliance with the provisions of the Act
Accordingly a determination by a tribunal of a question other than the one which the statute directs it to decide would be a decision not under the provisions of the Act and therefore in excess of its jurisdiction
The respondents  licence admittedly authorised them to import goods covered by entry 295
They could therefore legitimately import on the strength of that licence all and several kinds of parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters
The only question therefore before the Collector was whether the respondents  licence covered the goods imported by them ie whether the goods were parts and accessories
If they were the imports were legitimate and no question of their being nut covered by the licence or the respondents having committed breach of section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act or section 1678 of the could possibly arise
What the Collector however did was that he put the two consignments together and held that they made up 51 Rixe  Mopeds in CKD condition and were for that reason not the articles covered by entry 295 but articles prohibited under remark ii of entry 294
But entry 294 deals with the motor cycles and scooters complete and assembled
Remark ii against that entry prohibits an importer who held a licence to import motor cycles and scooters from importing motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Remark ii containing that prohibition had nothing to do with entry 295 which did not 1 572 contain any limitations or restrictions whatsoever against imports of parts and accessories
That being so if an importer has imported parts and acces sories his import would be of the articles covered by entry 295
The Collector could not say if they were so covered by entry 295 that when lumped together they would constitute other articles namely motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
Such a process if adopted by the Collector would mean that he was inserting in entry 295 a restriction which was not there
That obviously he had no power to do
Such a restriction would mean that though under a licence in respect of goods covered by entry 295 an importer could import parts and accessories of all kinds and types he shall not import all of them but only some so that when put together they would not make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
In the present case even that was not so because he would have to buy tyres tubes and saddles to convert them into motor cycles and scooters into CKD condition
That would be tantamount to the Collector making a new entry in place of entry 295 which must mean non compliance of that entry and acting in excess of jurisdiction during the course of his enquiry even though he had embarked upon the enquiry with jurisdiction
 In our view that was precisely what the Collector did
This is therefore not one of those cases where between two competing entries the statutory authority applied one or the other though in error and where a civil court cannot interfere
In this view the order was in non compliance of the provisions of the statute and therefore was covered by the exceptions laid down in Mask  Co s case1
It was not an order in respect of which the Collector was invested with jurisdiction
That being so the provision excluding the jurisdiction of the civil courts was not applicable
Indeed the order was a nullity and article 14 of the Limitation Act of 1908 could not be applied to hold the suit time barred
Even if Art 14 applied it would not be time barred if as the High Court pointed out the date of the appellate order was taken into consideration
The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court there fore must be upheld
Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
VPS Appeal dismissed
1 1948 LR 67 IA


Summary:
Under cl 3 of the Imports Control Order 1955 passed under section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act 1947 no person shall import any goods of the description specified in Sch
I except in accordance with a licence and if it was found that the goods imported did not conform to the description in the licence then without prejudice to any action that may be taken against the licensee under the Sea Customs Act such goods would be treated as having been imported without a valid licence in that behalf
Under Entry 294 of section 11 of Part IV of Sch
I of the Import Trade Control Policy July to December 1956 import of motor cycles and scooters was permitted under an appropriate licence but such a licence could not be used for their import in a completely knocked down CKD condition except by approved manufacturers
That is there was no absolute phohibition for their import in CKD condition
The words completely knocked down conditions are not used in any technical sense and have the dictionary meaning of made or constructed so as to be capable of being knocked down or taken apart as for transportation in parts ready to be assembled
Under Entry 295 except for rubber tyres and tubes for whose import a separate licence could be obtained there are no limitations as to the number or kind of parts or accessories of motor cycles and scooters which can be imported under a license obtained in respect of the goods
There are no remarks against this entry as there are against Entry 294 that the licence would not be valid for import of spares and accessories which if assembled would make motor cycles and scooters The respondents  licence authorised them to import goods covered by Entry 295 and they imported certain goods which arrived in two different consignments and on two different dates
They did not contain tyres tubes and saddles so that it was impossible to say that they constituted motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
The Collector of Customs and the Central Board of Revenue in appeal however put the two consignments together and held that trade practice did not require the supply of tyres and tubes and saddles while supplying motor cycles and that therefore they made up mopeds in CKD condition and were for that reason not the articles covered by Entry 295 but articles prohibited under Entry 294
The goods were directed to be confiscated with an option to the respondents to pay certain sums in lieu of confiscation and personal penalties
The respondent filed a suit in the High Court and the trial Judge dismissed it on the authority of Secretary of State vs Mask  Co 1948 LR 67 IA 222 and that the suit was time barred under article 14 of the Limitation Act
In appeal the Divisional Bench followed Anand vs Thakore  Co a decision of that High Court and allowed the appeal
In appeal to this Court 558 HELD 1 The mere fact that the goods imported by the respondents wereso complete that when put together would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition would not amount lo a breach of the licence or of entry 295
The restriction not to import motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition was against an importer holding a licence in respect of the goods covered by entry 294 under which he could import complete and assembled motor cycles and scooters and not against an importer who had a licence to import parts and accessories under entry 295
565 G H 566 E 2When the Collector examines goods imported under a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 what he has to ascertain is whether the goods are parts and accessories and not whether the goods though parts and accessories are so comprehensive that if put together would constitute motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition because it would then mean that there is in the entry a limitation against importation of all parts and accessories of motor cycles and scooters
Such an approach would be acting contrary to and beyond entry 295 and in non compliance of the entry and would lead to the anomalous result that even if the importer had sold away one consignment or part of it the Collector could still say that had the importer desired it was possible for him to assemble all parts and make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition
566 A C H 567 A B 3This Court in Girdhari Lal Bansidhar vs Union of India   laid down that the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution could not on the ground that it was erroneous interfere with the decision of the authority upon whom jurisdiction was conferred to decide the question whether the goods fell under one or other entry that is under which of two competing entries the goods fell
This Court also held that the import of parts of a prohibited article was import of the prohibited article and that the importer could not be allowed to do indirectly what he could not do directly and distinguished the case in Anand vs Thakore  Co In Anand s case it was held that the jurisdiction of the Collector was only to ascertain whether the goods were spare parts and accessories and not to find out whether if put together they would constitute auto cycles in CKD condition
567 B C 568 B E 4In the present case also the question before the Collector was whether the respondents  licence covered the goods imported by them that is whether the goods were parts and accessories
It is not therefore one of those cases where between two competing entries the statutory authority applied one or the other and where a civil court cannot interfere even if the statutory authority committed an error 572 C E 5 Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred
Such exclusion is inferred when the statute gives finality to the order of the tribunal on which it confers jurisdiction and provides for adequate remedy to do what the courts would normally do in such a proceeding before it
Even where the statute gives finality such a provision does not exclude cases where the provisions of the particular statute have not been complied with or the tribunal has not acted in conformity with fundamental principles of judicial procedure and a determination by a tribunal of a question other than the one which the statute directs it to decide would be a decision not under the provisions of the Act
571 B E Firm illuri Subbayya Chetty  Sons vs Andhra Pradesh   Dhulabhai vs Madhya Pradesh 1968 3 SCR 662 Panthulu vs Andhra Pradesh   Anisminic Ltd vs Foreign Com 559 pensation Commissioner  and R vs Fulham Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal  referred to
6Therefore the decision in the present case was covered by the exception laid down in Mask  Co s case and the provision excluding the jurisdiction of the civil court would not be applicable
Since non compliance with the provisions of the Act would be acting in excess of jurisdic tion the Collector s order was a nullity and article 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 could not be applied
Even if it was applicable the suit would not be barred if the date of the appellate order of the customs authorities was taken into consideration
572 E F