Tariff classification of nylon fishing nets turns on popular and trade meaning of fabric; residuary entry cannot override the specific item.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was held maintainable despite alternative statutory remedies because the dispute turned on interpretation of the tariff entry and no substantial factual controversy remained; the non-availment objection was rejected. For tariff classification, fishing nets made from nylon twine were construed in their ordinary and trade sense as fabrics, with nylon twine treated as a species of yarn and the processes of knitting, knotting or weaving regarded as sufficient to create fabric. Their end use was immaterial, and the residuary entry could not be applied where the goods fit the specific entry. The classification under the residuary item was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition could be entertained under Article 226 despite the availability of statutory remedies. (ii) Whether fishing nets manufactured from nylon twine were classifiable as man-made fabrics under Tariff Item No. 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or fell under the residuary Tariff Item No. 68.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition could be entertained under Article 226 despite the availability of statutory remedies.

Analysis: The existence of appeal or revision under the Act does not by itself bar constitutional jurisdiction. Where the challenge turns on interpretation of the tariff entry and no disputed question of fact substantially survives, the Court may exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly in a fiscal matter where the assessee alleges levy without authority of law.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-availment of statutory remedies was rejected, and the petition was entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether fishing nets manufactured from nylon twine were classifiable as man-made fabrics under Tariff Item No. 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or fell under the residuary Tariff Item No. 68.

Analysis: The expression "fabrics" was construed in its ordinary and popular sense, informed by trade usage and accepted nomenclature. The Court treated nylon twine as a species of yarn and held that knitting, knotting, or weaving by which the material is put together may produce a fabric. Use of the goods was held irrelevant to classification, and recourse to the residuary entry was held improper where the goods fit the specific entry. The reasoning also drew support from the expanding content of the concept of textile and from the rejection of a narrow construction of the tariff item.

Conclusion: Fishing nets were held to be fabrics within Tariff Item No. 22, and classification under Tariff Item No. 68 was held to be and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The classification order was set aside, the fishing nets were declared to fall within the specific fabric entry, and the assessee obtained relief in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, a product must be placed in the specific entry by construing the relevant word in its popular and trade sense; if the goods are formed from man-made yarn by a process of interlacing, knitting, knotting, or weaving, the use of the goods is immaterial and the residuary entry cannot be invoked.

---