LexMINERALS & METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
MINEl{ALS & METALS TRADING CORPORATION OF
B
c
D
E
G
INDIALTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
August 24, 1972
[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.J
/11dian Tariff Act-Import Tariff-A nnexure L-Entries 26, 70(7} &
81-Wolfranz Concentrate H'ith 6S(j;. W03 co11centration-Whether Jm-
porttlble, duly /re"-' <S Metallic .ore~Nor111n/ly ncct'ptable
n1erchm1tahlc
quality of 'ore·· alone relevant.
Jnterpretalion of statute.<i-Taxiug
statutes-Meaning in conunercial
sense and not' in sc~·e1Uific sense should be jollo1red.
The appellant imported 200 metric tons of wolfram
concentrate,
under a contract which prescribed minimum contents of 65% of W03 in
1he concentrate. Tue Customs authorities levied duty at the rate of 00%
amount under item 87 of the First Schedule. The appellant claimed re-
fund on 1hc ground that no duty was leviable as the goods imported was
an "ore" and fell under item 26 or 70(7) of the Import tariff. Tue Aosis-
lant Collector of Customs held that the appellant was not entitled to re-
rund because the tern1 'ore' mentioned in the text of item 26 is confined
to articles which are in form and condition in which they are mined and
not as wolfram ore concentrate in powder form as in the present case. On
appeal by the appellant the Appellate Collector held that the goods
in
question were in the monufacturcd form made by special specifications by
dressing and v.;ere thus not "ores'''. The Central Government rejected the
revision application filed by the appellant holding that the examination by
the Chemists showed that the uniform granules of the material were not
only separated fron1 rock_ hut also from various impurities· and had been
sub.1ccted to such processing as \vouttl take them· out of the category of
1nctallic ore 1ncntioned in entry 26.
In appeal 10 this Court the appellant contended that for the purp06es
,,f levy of duty under entry 26 the norma)ly
acceptable
merchantable
quality of wolfram (containing a minimum 65% W03) is relevant nnd
not wolfram in mined form.
Allowing the "ppeals,
HELD : Wolfram ore when mined contains only 5 to 2 per cent WOJ
aml in order to make it usable and merchantable ore with minimum 65 %
W03; concentration is necessary. If item 26 of the Import Tariff is to be
re~tricti::d to wolfram being n1aterial containing 5 to 2 per cent W03. H
would be mainly rock which can not be imported in large quantity and it
will have no market.
Jt is only usable ore with 65lJO W03 concentration
that is relevant for levy of duty. What bas to be seen is what is meant in
International trade and in the market by Wolfram ore containing 65% or
n1ore W03. ·The s::iid concentrate is achieved by seiecti,-e mining and
\Vashing or magnetic separation.
It docs not involve any manufacturing
or processing \Vith chemical for removing
impurities. The concentrate,
therefore. d1Jes not cease to be an 'ore) \vithin t:he 1neaning of Hem 26.
[1002C.F]
HELD. further, that in interpreliug items in trucing statutes resort
'hould be had not 10 the scientific or technical meaning buno the meaning
attached to them hy those dealing in them in their commercial sense.
.
~
fl002H] ·
997
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R.
ClVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
C.A. Nos. 877-879
of
A
1967.
Appeal by speciat Jea.ve under Article 136 ( 1) of the Cousti·
tution of India· from the order No. 2846-2848 of 1966, dated
25th and 29th November, 1966 of the Govt. of India, Ministn
of Finance in Custom Revision Application.
·
ll
M. C. Setalvad, B. Sen, M. K.
Banerji,
P.
C.
/ihartari,
Ravinder Narain, D. N. Misra, J. B. Dadachandji, for the
appellant.
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor-General of India, S. N. Prasad,
B. D.
Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents.
S. V. Gupte, D. B. Engineer, I'. C. Bhartari and Ravindcr
C
t\'araii1, for the interveners.
The Judgment of •the Court was delivered by
Grover, 1.
These appeals by special leave are from an order
of the Government oi India passed in Novem®r 1966 refusing
to refund the duty charged on 200 metric tons of Wolfram Ore
imported by the appellant Corporation from the US.S.R.
D
The facts are not in dispute. In October 1953 the appellant
entered into a contract with a Moscow concern for the purchase
of 200 metric tons of
Wolfram Concentrate.
The chemical
composition of the good~ apart from other components was to con-
tain W03 1he minimum percentage being 65%. The Office of
the. ChiefExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.