THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS versus K. GANGA SETTY

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 19-04-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
277 
declared. The Act does not contemplate an enquiry 
whether the dividend is properly paid credited or 
distributed before liability to pay· Tax attaches , 
thereto. 
The answer to the second contention for 
reasons already set out by us must be in the 
negai;ive. 
The appeals therefore fail and are . dismissed. 
In the circumstances of the case there will be no 
order as to costs. 
AppeaJ,s dismiased. 
THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM8, MADRAS 
v. 
K. GANGA SETTY 
(B. P. SINHA, 0. J .• P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, N . .RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
' T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
High, Oourt--Decision of Otl8toms A.utlwritits-Oonatruc-
tion of entiries in tariff Schedt1k-Jt1risdiction to interfere-
"Feed oats" u,sed horse feed-Whether falls withi,. "folder" 
or "grain"-lmport Trade Control Schedule, Part JV.Item 
Nos. 32 and 42-Specific Relief A.ct, 1877 (1 of 1877). •. 46 
Item 42 of Part IV of the Import Trade Control Schedule 
-permitted "fodder ..... " to be imported'Without a special import 
licence from a soft Currency area ... Item 32 of the same Sche-
dule related to "grain .... "and included oats;· and a licence 
was necessary for importing goods covered by this item. The 
respondent imported from Australia, without a liccncc,.goods 
described as "feed·oats" for feeding race horses. He claimed 
that the goods were covered by Item 42 and could be imported 
without a licence. The customs authorities held that the goods 
were "grains" within the meaning of Item 32 which could not 
be imported without a licence, confiscated the goods and im; 
posed a penalty in lieu of confiscation. The . respondent 
moved the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus 
under s, 45 specific Relief Act. The High Court held that the 
11/U 
---. 
lfUloin</rJMd 
c.wu.... .. 
v. ' 
c-i•......,., 
.....,...,.,. 
C..Wd Bomb111 
8,.,,, J. 
1952 
A/Jf'il 19. 
T"4 Coll~ oj 
CuJloms1 M <.dr~ 
.. 
K. Conga S111t.1 
278 
SUPREME OOURT R.Jll>ORTS [1963J 
goods we~c. covered by it':"' 42 and issued a writ prohibiting 
the authormes from recovenng the penalty imposed. 
ll.Zd, that the High Court had no jurisdiction to inter-
fere with the decision of the customs authorities that the goods 
fell within item 32. It is primarily for the Import Control 
authorities to determine the head of entry under which any 
particular commodity falls, and only when the construction 
adopted is perverse arc the courts entitled to interfere. In the 
present case the decision of the customs authorities was not 
one which could not be supported on any reasonable basis and 
could be called pcrvcne. 
VenkalMvaran v. Wadluoani, A. I. R. 1961 S. C. 1506, 
referred to. 
Held, further that the goods imported fell within item 82 
and not within item 42. Oats are undoubtedly grain. Any 
particular species of grain cannot be excluded from the item 
"grain" merely because it is capable of being used as cattle or 
horse feed. 
The matter is made clear by the reference to 
"oats 11 in item 32 where grain is classified into two categories, 
oats and ''other gains". 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 568 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
April 6, 1956, of the Madras High Court in 0 .. S. A. 
No. 147 of 1953. 
H. N. Sanyal, Additional &licitor..General of 
India, l'. D. Mahajan and P. D. Menon, for the 
appellant. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, M. S. K. 8CUJtri and M. S. 
Narasimhan, for the respondent. 
1962. April 19. The Judgment of the Court We.8 
delivered by 
AYYANGAR, J.-The point involved in this 
appeal which comes before us on a certificate of 
fitneBB under Art. 133 (l)(o) granted by the High 
Court of Madras ia a very short one and relates 
to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction poHe&-
Md by the High Court in considering the validity 
·• 
. .,r- • 
• 
I 
-
• 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
279 
of an order of the Customs Authorities interpreting 
the provisions of the entries .in the Tariff Schedule 
as regards the imposition of duties. 
The respondent imported from Australia a 
quantity of oats which was described in the indent, 
contract . and shipping documents as "standard 
feed-oats". The commodity imported consisted 
of oats in whole grain; 
The 
question raised 
related to the proper classification of the goods 
imported under the Import Trade Control Sche-
dules current during the period July to December 
1952 when the consignment reached India. The 
controversy centered round the point whet

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.