Trader status in agricultural produce processing remains unchanged where specific market fee collection clauses apply, excluding the residuary mode.

A person who buys notified agricultural produce for processing or manufacture and later sells the resultant notified produce remains a trader for market fee purposes if the statutory definition of trader covers purchase for resale, processing, manufacture or other non-domestic use. Processing alone does not convert such a person into a producer, because producer status depends on producing the main agricultural produce on one's own account. The residuary mode of collection under section 65(2-A)(iv) applies only where no specific collection clause governs the transaction; it cannot be used when the trader-related provisions apply. The statutory scheme therefore gives primacy to the specific collection mechanism over the residuary limb.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person who purchases notified agricultural produce, processes it into another notified agricultural produce, and then sells it remains a trader or becomes a producer for the purposes of market fee collection. (ii) Whether the residuary mode of collection under section 65(2-A)(iv) applies when the transaction falls within the trader-related clauses of section 65(2-A).

Issue (i): Whether a person who purchases notified agricultural produce, processes it into another notified agricultural produce, and then sells it remains a trader or becomes a producer for the purposes of market fee collection.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between producer, importer, exporter and trader. A producer is the person who produces the main agricultural produce on one's own account, whereas a trader is defined broadly as a person who buys notified agricultural produce for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or any other purpose other than domestic consumption. The fact that processing or manufacture results in a different notified agricultural produce does not, by itself, convert the person into a producer. The trading character extends to the whole commercial chain of purchase, processing, manufacture and sale.

Conclusion: The appellants remained traders and did not become producers of cashew kernel; the market fee could therefore be required to be realised from them under the trader-related provision.

Issue (ii): Whether the residuary mode of collection under section 65(2-A)(iv) applies when the transaction falls within the trader-related clauses of section 65(2-A).

Analysis: The residuary clause applies only when none of the specific clauses in section 65(2-A) governs the transaction. Since the appellants fell within the trader-related collection mechanism, the residuary provision could not be invoked. The specific statutory modes of collection displaced the general residuary limb.

Conclusion: Section 65(2-A)(iv) did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the market committee's notices failed, and the dismissal of the appeals was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who buys notified agricultural produce for processing or manufacture and subsequently sells the resultant notified agricultural produce remains a trader for market fee purposes, and the residuary collection clause applies only when no specific statutory mode of collection is attracted.

---