LexCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY versus SWASTIC WOOLLEN (P) LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY v. SWASTICWOOLLEN (P) LTD. & ORS. AUGUST 10, 1988 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962: Sections lll(d), (m), 112 and 130 E. 'Wool waste'-Duty-Levy of-Whether particular goods is 'wool waste'- Primarily and essentially a question of fact- decision based on relevant material facts and correct legal principle-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Statutory Interpretation: Customs/Central Excise Act-No/statu- tory definition provided in respect of an Item-Trade understanding the D safest guide. Respondent No. 1 imported consignments of wool material and claimed that the imported goods were wool waste and hence not liable to customs duty. The goods were examined .by an Expert Committee, who opined that the goods were other than wool waste. Based on the Com- E mittee's opinion, the Additional Collector or Customs, &fter notice, examined the whole case, charged the respondent with the violation of the Import Control Regulations and held that the goods were not wool waste but processed woollen products other than wool tops/raw wool. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal. F Dismissing the appeal it was, HELD: (1) When no statutory definition is provided- in respect of an item in the Customs Act or the Central Excises Act. the trade undel"Staodiog,~ meaoiog_thereby the understanding In the opinion of G those who deal with the goods in question, is the safest guide. [374B] Union of India v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills, (1963] Supp l SCR 586; South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1968] 3 SCR 21; Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976] 2 SCR 98; In re: Colgate Palmolive (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1979] ELT 567; Commissioner of H Sales-tax, U.P. v. M/s. S.N. Bros, Kanpur, [1973] 2 SCR 852 and His 370 COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. SWASTIC WOOLLEN 371 Majesty The King v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Co. Ltd., [1951) CLR A (Ex) 122, referred to. (2) The expression "wool waste" is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification. This expression is not an expression of art. It may he understood, as in most of financial measures where the expres- sions are not defined, not in a technical or on any preconceived basis B but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with those goods. [3760-E) (3) Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this case are wool wastes or not is primarily and essentially a question of fact. The decision on such a question of fact must he arrived at without C ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles. Judge by these yardsticks, the fmding of the Tribunal in this case is unassailable. [376F) (4) If a fact-finding authority comes to a conclusion within the parameters, honestly and bona fide, the fact that another authority he D It the Supreme Court or the High Court may have a different perspec- tive of that question is no ground to ini.erfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding under Section BOE of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value 11f goods for purposes of assessment, the amplitude of appeal is unlimited. But because the jurisdiction is unlimited, there is Inherent limitation E imposed in such appeals. [376G-H; 377B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1016-25 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.1987 of the Customs F Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos. CD(SB) (T) 1776, 1777, 1797 to 1799, 1800, 1911, 2263, 2264 and 2265 of 1986-D in Order Nos. 68 to 77 of 1987-D. Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Pramod Swamp and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Appellant. G V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Madhava Rao, V. Krishnamurthy, R. Karanjawala, Mrs. M. Karanjawala and· Ms. lndu Malhotra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H A 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals under section BOE of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called 'the Act') arise from the decision. of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appel- late Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter called 'CEGAT'). Section 130E(b) permits appeal to this Court from any order of the said Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of du
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.