9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the goods under Customs Notification No. 142, dated 2-8-1976 and Notification No. 200, dated 2-8-1976. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector but allowed in appeal by the Appellate Collector and hence the present appeals by the Collector of Customs. 2. We have heard Shri Vineet Kumar, Sr. D.R. for the appellant and Shri P.R. Dastidar, Consultant, for the respondent 3. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent as to the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that the Collector had not authorised the Assistant Collector to file the present appeals on his behalf. We had accordingly directed the Sr. DR. to producer the collector's file for our perusal. On the adjourned date of hearing, this fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that Soyabean milk was not milk for the purpose of the notification. If it were milk, the Assistant Collector reasoned, there was no need for issue of Notification No. 143/76, which exempted in terms, corn-soya milk and wheat-soya blend, when imported under the World Food Programme, from basic Customs duty in excess of the duty leviable on dried skim milk falling under Chapter 4 of the Schedule. 7. In appeal, the Appellate Collector held that the term milk should not be narrowly construed to mean only milk secreted by female mammals but also milk derived from other sources such as coconut and soyabean. She also held that a substitute for milk should also be covered by the term "milk food" in the two notifications. Accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e where, unlike in the case of imported goods, common parlance test had a lot to do with classification of goods. The Consultant then profusely cited passages from G.P. Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" (3rd Edition) and submitted that the Court must take that view which would effectuate the intention of the law (notification) and not stultify it. The reference to Customs Notification No. 143/76 by the Assistant Collector was irrelevant since the present was by an import by an individual and not under the World Food Programme. 12. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The Tribunal's decision in the Frozen Food case (supra) is not relevant to the present case. In that case, the product under consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishment of their young; in the case of the cow, goat, and some other animals, this liquid used for food or as a source of dairy products; any liquid resembling this, as the liquid within a coconut, the juice or sap of certain plants, or various pharmaceutical preparations." 14. It may also be noted that Notification No. 143/76, dated 2-8-1976 (which, as rightly stated by Shri Dastidar, is not relevant for the present purpose) talks of Corn-Soya Milk. This is evidence of the position that "Milk" for purpose of the tariff is not confined to milk as it is ordinarily understood (milk secreted by female mammals) but also includes milklike juices from vegetable sources. No doubt Chapter 4 of the Schedule would cover only milk, produce of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
