Tariff classification review is limited to perversity, and whole grain oats remain grain despite possible animal-feed use.

Judicial interference with customs tariff classification is confined to cases where the administrative construction is perverse, meaning no reasonable person could adopt it. If two interpretations are reasonably open, the court should not substitute its own view merely because another reading better suits the importer. Whole grain oats were held to fall within the ordinary meaning of grain, and their possible use as animal feed did not convert them into fodder, since oats remain capable of human consumption. The note therefore treats oats as properly classifiable under the grain entry rather than the fodder entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court could interfere with the customs authorities' classification of whole grain oats under the import control entry for grain. (ii) Whether whole grain oats, capable of use as human food as well as animal feed, were excluded from the category of grain and fell within fodder.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could interfere with the customs authorities' classification of whole grain oats under the import control entry for grain.

Analysis: The scope of interference under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act was narrower than under the constitutional writ jurisdiction. The primary function of the import control authorities was to determine the appropriate tariff entry. Judicial interference was justified only where the construction adopted by the authorities was perverse, that is, one which no reasonable person could adopt. If two constructions were reasonably possible, the Court could not substitute its own preference merely because it considered the alternative interpretation more favourable to the importer.

Conclusion: The customs authorities' classification was open to review only on the limited ground of perversity, and the High Court erred in interfering.

Issue (ii): Whether whole grain oats, capable of use as human food as well as animal feed, were excluded from the category of grain and fell within fodder.

Analysis: Whole grain oats answered the description of grain. The fact that a grain may also be used as horse feed does not convert it into fodder. Fodder denotes food specially of the kind used for stall feeding cattle, whereas oats are not by nature incapable of human consumption. The specific reference to oats within the grain entry made the position clearer and showed that whole grain oats were properly classifiable under the grain item and not under fodder.

Conclusion: Whole grain oats were correctly classified as grain and not as fodder.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's interference was set aside, and the respondent's application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will interfere with an administrative tariff classification only when the construction adopted is perverse, and a commodity that remains grain in its ordinary character does not become fodder merely because it is also capable of being used as animal feed.

---