Farid Khawan V. Comptroller Of Customs (1955)

LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal

Exchange Control Ordinance—Diamonds—Application of Customs Ordinance: section 248: (1) on value for penalty purposes, and (2) on certificate of value— Certificate conclusive and no other evidence required.

Facts

The Exchange Control Ordinance provides for applying the enactments on customs to goods which under the Ordinance may not be exported.

A traveller with diamonds is liable to pay a penalty of three times their value, under section 125 of the Customs Ordinance, the value being determined in accordance with section 248 (text in judgment infra) which (briefly) provides in sub-section (1) that it shall be estimated and taken according to the rate and price for which the best quality goods of the like kind were sold at or about the time of the offence, and in sub-section (2) that ” a certificate as to the value of such goods under the hand of an officer shall be conclusive, and shall not be questioned in any Court.”

The appellant was caught with diamonds just before flying for abroad and was sued by the Comptroller of Customs for the penalty. A Senior Collector of Customs tendered a certificate of their value; the Magistrate ruled that before it could be admitted, a foundation had to be laid under sub-section (1) of section

The Collector then gave evidence of how he had arrived at the value; the Magistrate ruled that the certificate and the oral evidence did not accord with the formula laid down in section 248 (1) and rejected the certificate. Then other evidence was called for the Comptroller, but the Magistrate was not satisfied.

The Comptroller of Customs appealed against the Magistrate’s decision (a) that there was no evidence or sufficient evidence to fix value upon, and (d) against the rejection of the certificate as to value.

The Supreme Court Judge took the view on (d) that the Magistrate was right in rejecting the certificate, but on (a) that the other evidence ought to have been accepted, and remitted the case to the Magistrate with certain directions on how to fix the amount of the penalty.

The defendant appealed (inter alia) on the ground that the Judge had erred in the view he took on value. For the Comptroller it was submitted that the certificate as to value should have been admitted in evidence.

Held

The two sub-sections of section 248 of the Customs Ordinance provide alternative and independent methods of proving value, and the certificate under sub-section (2) ought to have been admitted, and then no other evidence on value would have been necessary or admissible as the certificate is conclusive and cannot be questioned in Court.

Appeal dismissed; judgment varied; penalty fixed and ordered.