Judgment :- This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the older of the Collector of Customs made in connection with certain imports. The petitioner company had two import licences for the value of Rs. 500/- and Rs 660/- respectively for the import of watch movements or parts of watches. According to the petitioner, the foreign manufacturers, circularised the Indian dealers, the petitioner among them, to say that they had on their hands a stock of parts of watches of Indian models which had become dead stock as there was a ban on the import of watches as a whole. Since these parts were of those specially manufactured for Indian conditions and could not be sold in other markets, the manufacturers were prepared to reduce the prices for these job lots and requested the petitioner to utilise its import licences for importing these spare parts. In pursuance of this understanding, the petitioner claimed that it placed an order for the import of parts of watches upto the value of the licences. When the goods arrived by post-parcel in November, 1959, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Postal Appraising Department, purported to value the goods at Rs 1470/- as against the invoice value of Rs. 1165/-. He claimed that the excess was not covered by the licences produced, and that the goods were under-valued, such under-valuation being an offence under the provisions of the Import Trade Control Order, read with the provisions of the Sea Customs Act. A notice was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs to the petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that the value stated in the invoice was the correct value and produced the circular letter from its manufacturers to establish the reasons for the lowering of the price by the manufacturers. It was also pointed out that the Bombay Customs accepted the position, but the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras declined to give any credit to the explanation and by the order dated 20th April, 1960, he confiscated the goods under Section 167(8) as having been imported without a valid licence and gave the option under Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act to clear the goods for home consumption on payment of fine of Rs. 950/-. 950/-. The petitioner paid the penalty under protest and obtained release of the goods and thereafter an appeal was filed to the Collector of Customs, who, however rejected the contentions of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner claims that the relevant documents produced before the Customs Authorities fully establish that the real value of the goods was within the limits of the licences and that the respondent Collector of Customs erred in taking into consideration factors which were wholly irrelevant to the determination of the value. It is also claimed that the authorities purported to rely upon evidentiary material of which the petitioner was given no notice whatsoever and had no opportunity of meeting that evidence. 2.In the counter-affidavit of the respondent, it is stated, that the import contravened the provisions of the Import Trade Control Order inasmuch as the appraised value of the goods was found to be much higher than the invoice value and the value importable under the licence. It is pointed out that the circular issued by the manufacturers was incomplete in details inasmuch as the price stated therein did not specify the quantities for which these prices were fixed. It was claimed that the Collector is the authority under the relevant provisions of the Sea Customs Act to ascertain the real value in such circumstances as those that obtain in the present case and that the procedure adopted cannot therefore be attacked. While it is conceded that the basis of the price of Rs. 21/- adopted by the Collector with reference to the imports of closely comparable watch movements of the like kind and quality was not brought to the notice of the petitioner, it is contended that the petitioner could have asked for details of the evidence upon which the real price of the goods was determined. It is pointed out that even in the appeal, the petitioner did not ask for information upon this point. For these reasons, it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of the Collector of Customs. 3.In the notice that was issued by the Assistant Collector, dated 23-1-1960, it was stated that the appraised value of the goods was Rs. 1470/- as against the invoice value of Rs. For these reasons, it is claimed that the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of the Collector of Customs. 3.In the notice that was issued by the Assistant Collector, dated 23-1-1960, it was stated that the appraised value of the goods was Rs. 1470/- as against the invoice value of Rs. 1165/- and that accordingly the importation being of a value in excess of the licence, contravened the provisions of the Import Trade Control Order. In the reply, the petitioner protested against the appraisement of the value and produced the circular issued by the manufacturers and insisted that the value as mentioned in the invoice was the real value of the goods. This was followed by another letter from the petitioner pointing out that in respect of a similar consignment imported by Messrs. P. C. Patel and Co. of Bombay, no objection was raised with regard to the value. The Assistant Collector of Customs, by his order dated 20th April, 1960 held that the assessed value of Rs 1470 /- was the correct value and that the value shown in the invoice represented an under-valuation. He stated in his order that the circular did not give any particulars of the quantities for which the prices were quoted and that it could not be relied upon. He stated : "The appraised value of Rs 21/- per piece, estimated by this office, which is supported by invoices in respect of identical goods imported by others, represents the correct value of the goods. The invoice value which is found to be low, cannot be accepted." * and proceeded to make the order of confiscation and the consequential order of imposition of a penalty for redemption. 4.In the appeal, the Collector of Customs, apparently concurred in the view taken by the Assistant Collector. He stated: "The appraised value of Rs. 21/- per piece, estimated by this office, which is supported by invoices in respect of identical goods imported by other parties, represents the correct value of the goods. Further job lot supplies do not generally carry any discount, whereas the invoice produced carries the usual 5 percent discount......" * For these reasons, he affirmed the order of confiscation. 5.Two decisions of this Court have been brought to my notice dealing with a similar question. Further job lot supplies do not generally carry any discount, whereas the invoice produced carries the usual 5 percent discount......" * For these reasons, he affirmed the order of confiscation. 5.Two decisions of this Court have been brought to my notice dealing with a similar question. In Narayanan v. Collector of Customs, (1962 M.W.N. 685) certain goods which had been imported reached the Madras Port outside the period of the importer's licence and that importer refused to take delivery of the goods. A third party, who held a licence to import similar goods for the face value of Rs. 500/-, made an offer to the foreign exporter that he would himself personally take the goods if they were to be sold to him for the sum of Rs. 500/-. The exporter agreed, for otherwise, he would have been put to loss by re-booking the goods which could not be cleared by the original importer. The market value of the goods was admittedly in excess of this sum of Rs. 500/-. The Assistant Collector of Customs accordingly took the view that the licence in favour of the petitioner, which was for Rs. 500/-, could not validly cover the import. He directed confiscation of the goods with opportunity to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 1200/-. This matter came to this Court by way of a writ petition. Ramachandra Iyer, J. as he then was, found that in so far as the invoice in the name of the petitioner was concerned, it was within the limit of Rs. 500/- though no doubt the invoice in favour of the earlier importer was for a much larger sum in respect of the same consignment. He observed : "The licence specifically states that the limiting factor for the purpose of clearance through customs is the value of the goods and that value is stated as the approximate c.i.f. value. It is not disputed in the present case that the c.i.f. value so far as the petitioner was concerned was only pounds 36-15-0, that is, within the limits of the licence issued to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Customs Department, it is stated that the Customs Authorities have always been working on the basis that it is the assessable c.i.f. value of the goods which is considered as the value of the import licence. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Customs Department, it is stated that the Customs Authorities have always been working on the basis that it is the assessable c.i.f. value of the goods which is considered as the value of the import licence. I find it difficult to understand what is meant by "assessable c.i.f. value". C.I.F. value represents the price for which the seller is willing and does sell the goods. That is a matter which will be governed by the contract between the parties. If the seller is willing to sell his goods on account of some circumstances he found himself placed for a considerably lower value than their market price, it cannot be said that the c.i.f. price of the goods was anything other than what was stipulated between the parties as the price. So far as assessable value is concerned, there can be no doubt that the provisions of Section 30 of the S.C.A. would apply - we have only to see whether the goods are liable to entry into this country under cover of the licence granted in favour of the petitioner. The only governing factor so far as that question is concerned is the contract price between the parties. It is not contended on behalf of the Department that the contractual c.i.f. price was anything other than what is represented in the invoice issued by the seller to the petitioner. There may be cases where the invoice price was only a camouflage to hide the real price, in such a case, the Import Control authorities will have undoubted jurisdiction to ascertain what was the real price; or there may be cases in which a portion of the price had already been given to the seller and the balance alone is entered in the invoice simply with a view to obtain entry for the goods into this country. In these cases, it will be competent for the authorities to ascertain the real price of the goods for the purpose of entry without offending the provisions of Import Control Order......" * 6.It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that this decision completely meets the contentions of the respondent and that it lays down that the invoice price which is the price contracted for between the parties must be taken as the price for the purposes of the licence. I do not think that the learned Judge purported to lay down any absolute proposition, for the latter portion of the passage extracted above shows that there may be cases where the price as get down in the invoice may not be the real price and may have been put at a lower figure for the purposes of either avoiding the proper customs duty leviable or for importing a larger quantity of goods than what the licence covered. In the peculiar circumstances of that case, this court was willing to accept the position that the c.i.f. value found on the invoice represented the true price. 7.Another judgment of Veeraswamy, J., in W.P. No. 784 of 1959 has followed the principles of the decision referred to. 8.It is not necessary for me to examine whether the facts in the present case are identical with those in the decision referred to. There is, however, one circumstance which shows that the petitioner was given no opportunity of establishing its contention and in fact the material upon which the Department purported to rely was material of which the petitioner had no notice. In the impugned order, it is stated that the price of Rs. 21/- per piece is the price at which other parties had imported similar goods, who the other parties were or even whether the goods were similar goods were matters of which the petitioner had no notice. As pointed out by the petitioner, in the case of some costlier varieties of watches, similar spare parts could be sold at a higher price. If the evidence upon which the Department purported to rely can be accepted at its face value, equally the evidence which the petitioner sought to place before the Department of similar imports at Bombay could have been accepted. It is true that the fact that the Bombay Customs Collector permitted the import in a similar case may not conclude the issue in so far as this petitioner is concerned and may not again prevent the Collector of Customs, Madras, from enforcing the provisions of the Act according to his understanding of these provisions. But the point to note is that when the Department purported to rely upon evidence and make an order against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Department to have bought that evidence to the notice of the petitioner and asked him to contest the position. But the point to note is that when the Department purported to rely upon evidence and make an order against the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Department to have bought that evidence to the notice of the petitioner and asked him to contest the position. Equally, the reliance placed by the Collector of Customs in his appellate order in his view that the customary discount would nor be available in the case of sale of job lots is certainly based on no evidence of any prevailing practice of that description. 9.The contention that the petitioner could have asked the Department to disclose the material and that its failure to have made such a demand should be taken to deny it the right to attack the order on that ground does not strike me as reasonable at all. The Customs Authorities have at least a quasi-judicial duty to perform and when they purport to rely upon certain material, it is their duty to have brought that material to the notice of the party against whom such material is intended to be used. It is no answer to say that the party could have asked for such procedure at least at the appellate stage; it certainly could have been aware that in the order of the Asst. Collector of Customs, such reliance upon the material would be placed. 10.It follows, therefore, that the petition has to be allowed. The rule is made absolute. It will be open to the Customs Authorities to deal with the matter afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.