Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1962 (4) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Assistant Collector and of the Collector on appeal holding the oats imported by the respondent to be grain cannot therefore be characterised as perverse or mala fide and in the circumstances we consider that the learned Judges of the High Court erred in interfering with the order of the appellant. Appeal allowed. - 588 of 1960 - - - Dated:- 19-4-1962 - Bhuvaneswar Prasad Sinha, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyanagar and T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, JJ. [Judgment per : N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.]. - The point involved in this appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1)(c) granted by the High Court of Madras is a very short one and relates to the nature and extent of the jurisd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the quantity to be imported and that actual users (A.U.) could apply for the licence. 3.The respondent who carried on business in fodder under the name and style of Balakrishna Flour Mills placed an order with an Australian firm for the supply of whole grain "feed-oats" without obtaining any licence for the import. The goods arrived in Madras on August 1, 1952, and when the respondent attempted to clear the goods, the Customs Authorities insisted on the production of a licence before he would be permitted to do so. The Assistant Collector held that the goods imported fell within Item 32 and as admittedly the respondent held no licence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, covering the import, there had been a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e authorities. An appeal was preferred therefrom to a Division Bench and the learned Judges allowed the appeal and issued a direction prohibiting the Collector and his subordinates from collecting or taking steps to recover the fines and penalties imposed on the respondent. It is the correctness of this order of the Division Bench that is challenged in this appeal. 5.Shortly stated, the ground on which the learned Judges allowed the respondent's appeal were : (1) that the decision of the Customs Authorities as regards the entry of the Tariff classification within which an imported commo- dity fell was not final but was open to judicial review and had ultimately to be decided by the Courts, (2) in the case before the Court, Entry 32 readin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h no reasonable person could adopt, i.e., if the construction was perverse, then it was a case in which the Court was competent to interfere. In other words, if there are two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear, and one of them which was in favour of Revenue was adopted, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation favourable to the subject appeals to the Court as the better one to adopt. 8.In the present case it could not be contended that uncrushed oats did not answer the description of "grain" and therefore the decision of the Customs authorities holding that the oats imported fell within Item 32 could not be said to be a view which on no reasonable interpretation could be entertaine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... "grain" is classified into two categories, "oats" and "other grains". It is apparent that unfortunately the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the entry in full, because, in the course of the judgment they point out that the construction of Entry 42 would be different if there had been a specific reference to oats in Entry 32. 10.Learned Counsel for the respondent laid some stress on the respondent having been misled by the answer of the Deputy Chief Controller of Exports to a query as regards the scope of Entry 42. The answer which was stated to have misled was in these terms : "Feed oats classifiable under serial 42 of Part IV can be imported under Open General Licence No. XXIII." an answer by no means a model of clar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates