Writ interference in customs classification is limited where the authority's interpretation is reasonable and not perverse.

Customs classification of imported sprayers and spare parts was not open to writ interference where the authority's view was reasonable and not perverse. The Court held that Article 226 does not permit the writ court to sit in appeal over a customs classification merely because another interpretation is possible. On the facts, the sprayers were found not to be specially designed for exclusive use with power pumps and therefore did not fall within the licence item covering parts of power-driven agricultural machinery. The customs authorities' classification was upheld and the claim that the goods were covered by the licence failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the customs authorities' classification of the imported sprayers and their spare parts under the import control schedule could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and whether the goods were covered by the licence issued for parts of power-driven agricultural machinery.

Analysis: The relevant question was whether machinery capable of being operated in more than one way could still be treated as power-driven machinery for the purpose of the import licence. The customs authorities found, on the facts before them, that the sprayers were not specially designed for exclusive use with power pumps and therefore fell outside the item covering parts of power-driven agricultural machinery. The Court held that, in such matters, judicial interference under Article 226 is warranted only if the authority's view is perverse or unreasonable. Where the construction adopted by the customs authorities is a reasonable one, the court does not sit in appeal over that classification merely because another view may also be possible.

Conclusion: The customs authorities' view was upheld and the writ court was not entitled to interfere; the imported goods were not shown to be covered by the licence item claimed by the appellant.

---