1972 (9) TMI 52 - SC - Customs

Whether the goods correctly answered the description of goods for which the appellant had been given an import licence? Held that - No manner of doubt that the High Court of Bombay was quite right in accepting the conclusions and findings of the Customs authorities about the proper scope of Item 74(vi) of the I.T.C. Schedule. In our opinion there is nothing in the decision of the Collector which can warrant its condemnation as perverse or unreasonable. Even if it be assumed that because of the language used in the two items viz. Items 74(vi) and 74(x) of the I.T.C. Schedule there is some room for confusion it would not be competent for the High Court to interfere in a writ petition with the conclusion or finding of the Collector of Customs regarding the scope and ambit of those items and the appellant guilty under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 80, 000. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of import licence description
- Classification of imported goods under relevant Import Trade Control Schedule
- Authority of Customs authorities in determining classification
- Judicial review of Customs authorities' decisions

Interpretation of import licence description:
The appellant, a sole proprietor importing agricultural machinery parts, imported liquid containers intended for sprayers under an import licence. The Customs authorities contended that the sprayers were hand-operated and not power-driven, falling under a different category in the Import Trade Control Schedule. The appellant argued that the sprayers functioned with power-driven pumps, aligning with the import licence description. The Collector of Customs found the appellant guilty of unauthorized importation, imposing a penalty. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the distinction between power-driven and hand-operated machinery.

Classification of imported goods under relevant Import Trade Control Schedule:
The main issue revolved around whether the imported goods fell under Item 74(vi) or 74(x) of the Import Trade Control Schedule. The appellant claimed the goods were spare parts of power-driven agricultural machinery, as per the import licence. Conversely, the Customs authorities asserted the goods were hand-operated sprayers, not covered by the import licence. The Collector's findings supported the Customs authorities' classification, leading to the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Authority of Customs authorities in determining classification:
The judgment highlighted the Customs authorities' role in interpreting and applying the Import Trade Control Schedule. It emphasized that unless the authorities' decision was found to be perverse, judicial interference was limited. The judgment referred to previous decisions emphasizing that the High Court or Supreme Court should not intervene if the Customs authorities' interpretation was reasonable. The Collector's decision regarding the classification of the imported goods was deemed valid and not subject to judicial review.

Judicial review of Customs authorities' decisions:
The judgment underscored the limited scope of judicial review over Customs authorities' classification decisions. It cited precedents where courts refrained from interfering unless the authorities' interpretation was unreasonable or perverse. The judgment concluded that the High Court correctly upheld the Customs authorities' findings regarding the Import Trade Control Schedule classification. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the decision of the Bombay High Court without costs awarded in this case.