TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Judgment per : A.K. Mukherjea, J.]. - This appeal with certificate is directed against a judgment dated 26/27 July, 1965 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay by which the appellant's appeal from a judgment of a Single Judge of that High Court had been dismissed. The short facts of the case are as follows : 2.The appellant is the sole proprietor of a firm by the name of New India Corporation and carries on business of importing plantation and agricultural machinery, implements, accessories and spare parts of such machinery. The appellant is also the sole selling agent of a German firm called "Carl Platz". In October, 1956, on the strength of two import licences dated 9 February, 1956 and 16th March, 1956, the appellant imported from his principals the aforesaid firm of Carl Platz, certain parts of agricultural machinery known as Express Battery Sprayers. The relevant invoice is dated 28th October, 1956 and the Bill of Lading is dated 10th November, 1956. The appellant filed his Bill of Entry before the Customs authorities on 3rd January, 1957. When the goods arrived at the Bombay port in January, 1957, the Customs authorities, after examining certain samples, gave c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his case were intended to be parts of certain sprayers fabricated by Carl Platz and generally described as Express Battery Sprayers. These sprayers, according to the appellant, function normally with the help of Power-driven pumps. Functionally, therefore, what the appellant imported were, according to him, correctly described in the import licence. In other words, the appellant contends that the imports were in terms of the import licence. The Customs authorities on the other hand, say that the Sprayers built by Carl Platz are hand-operated sprayers and, therefore, fall within Item 74(x) of Part V of the I.T.C. Schedule which item relates to "sprayers (other than power-driven) and parts". As both Items 74(vi) and 74(x) with which we are concerned belong to Part V of the I.T.C. Schedule, we shall, for the sake of convenience, refrain hereafter from mentioning either the Schedule or the relevant part. According to the Customs authorities, though the appellant's import licence was one in respect of goods covered by Item 74(vi), he had, in fact, brought goods falling under Item 74(x) so that, in effect, the goods that the appellant had imported were not covered by any valid import lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the I.T.C. Schedule". 5.Mr. Tarkunde who appeared for the appellant before us admitted frankly that unless the Collector's decision is found to be perverse, neither the High Court nor this Court could interfere with that decision. He contended, however, that if in interpreting the I.T.C. Schedule for the purpose of finding out which was the proper item of the Schedule under which the imported goods would fall, the Collector is found to have made any mistake that would be open to correction by the High Court as well as by this Court. He also argued that while the Collector's finding on facts about the results of the demonstration before him cannot be legally questioned by the appellant, it is permissible for him to dispute the correctness of the statements made by the Collector in the last two sentences of the paragraph which we have set out above from the Collector's order. 6.On the assumption that the Collector's finding on fact cannot be assailed in a writ petition we must start from the proposition that the imports were of spare parts of spraying machines which were capable of being used both as a power-driven machinery as well as a hand-operated machinery. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty on the importer in lieu of confiscation. The importer succeeded in the High Court in a writ petition for prohibiting the authorities from recovering the penalty imposed. This Court in a Bench consisting of five Judges considered this matter and held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Customs authorities. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. who delivered the judgment of the Court found that the decision of the Assistant Collector of Customs and of the Collector of Customs on appeal holding the oats in question to be `grains' could not be characterised as perverse or mala fide. On these grounds his Lordship held that the learned Judges of the High Court had erred in interfering with the order of the Collector of Customs. Ayyangar, J. referring to an earlier decision of this Court in Venkatesvaran v. Wadhwani - (1962) 1 SCR 753 observed as follows : "This Court proceeded on the basis that it is primarily for the Import Control authorities to determine the head of entry under which any particular commodity fell; but that if in doing so these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt i.e., if the construction was perv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
