ANANT B. TIMBODIA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 26-02-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

_ANANT B. TJMBODIA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS . 
. FEBRUARY 26, 1992 
(M.H. KANIA, CJ., V. RAMASWAMI AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
Impon-Expon Policy, April 199(}-Marcl~ 1993: 
A 
B 
Item 169 of List S. Appendix 6, Pan I and Para 167 of Chapter 
XIII-<:ioves-<:zassification of-Whether cloves imponed by appellant fell C 
within Item 169 "Dmgs!Dmg Intemtediate not elsewhere specified." 
The appellant obtained, by transfer, an Import Licence for the 
import of admissible Items as per Para 220 (2), (3), (4) and (6) of the 
Import Policy 1990-93 Vol.I and placed an order on a foreign firm for the 
supply of cloves No. 1 quality. On arrival of the goods in the Indian Port, D 
the appellant filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of the goods for home 
consumption, and claimed clearance of the goods against the additional 
licence on the ground that the cloves were covered under Item 169 of 
Appendix 6, List 8, Part I of the Import and Export Policy, being 
Drugs/Drug intermediate not elsewhere specified." The Department rely-
E 
ing on Para 167, which dealt with the import of spices, took the view that 
the cloves could be imported only against specific licence relating to cloves. 
Hence the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction 
to the respondent to clear the goods against the Bill of Entry filed by the 
appellant. . 
The High Court held that cloves could not fall within the expression 
"Drugs/Drug intermediate not elsewhere specified" and the import of the 
cloves without specific licence was not permissible, and that the licence 
relied upon by the appellant was not valid for the import of cloves. 
F 
In the appeal before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the G 
appellant-importer that in popular sense and trade parlance, clove was 
also used as drug intermediate, and that in the Import Policies of 1982·83 
to 1985-86 cloves were specified as crude drtig and the cloves and clove oil 
were used for treatment of dyspepsia, flatulence, etc., and tooth problems 
. and, therefore, the High Court committed an error in holding that clove H 
997 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 
A was not a Drug/Drug intermediate, and that it did not fall within Item 169. 
Dismissing the appeal of the Importer, this Court, 
HELD : 1.1 Para 167 under Chapter XIII of the Import Policy of 
April 1990·93 clearly provides the heading Import of Spices and under this 
B heading or spices 'it further makes a mention that import or Cloves, 
Cinnamon/Cassia, Nutmeg and Mace will be allowed against licences. 
Thus, it is clear beyo°'d any doubt that cloves have been included under 
the heading Spices and the import or cloves is only permissible against 
specific licences obtained in the manner provided in Para 167. lo the face 
C of this provision, dealing with the import of spices, which specifically 
includes cloves, the general provision of Item 169 mentioning Drugs/Drug 
intermediates cannot be applied. [1002D-EJ 
1.2 In the instant case the appellant had obtained the licence in 
November, 1990 and has imported the cloves in May, 1991 and as such the 
D import of doves in question, shall be governed by the provisions contained 
in the Import Policy"of April, 1990-93, and not by any meaning given to 
cloves in any earlier Policy. Therefore, when para 167 provides for obtain-
ing specific licence for cloves, there is no necessity of finding its meaning 
from earlier Policies or its use as medicine. There is a clear provision 
E under Para 167 as regards import or spices and it would govern the import 
of cloves. That apart, the High' Court was right in holding that in the 
common parlance as well as in trade and commerce, clove is treated as 
spice and not drug. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cloves 
are sold in a '.Kirana' shop and not in the shop or a chemist or druggist. 
F 
G 
[1002C, F-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 916 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.6.1991 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P.No. 1914 of 1991. 
Harish N.Saive, Rajiv K.Garg and N.D. Garg for the Appellant. 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Addi. Solicitor General, A.Subba Rao, P.Parmeswaran 
and A.D.N. Rao for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
r 
AB. TIMBODIA v. U.0.1. [KASLIWAL, J.] 
999 
KASLIWAL, J. Special leave granted. 
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Bombay High 
Court dated 18.6.1991. The short controversy raised in the present case 
is whether the clov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.