Common parlance test governs tariff classification; glass fibre sleevings were not treated as textile articles.

PVC coated periglass sleevings and silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings were held not to be textile articles under Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff because, where the tariff does not define "textile," the entry must be construed in its ordinary commercial sense rather than a technical one. On that test, glass fibre sleeving may be described as textile material technologically, but it is not understood as textile in common trade usage. The departmental classification was open to judicial correction because it rested on an erroneous interpretation of the tariff expression, and the remand for fresh classification under the proper entry was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether PVC coated periglass sleevings or silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings are textile articles falling under Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff. (ii) Whether the High Court could interfere with the departmental classification and uphold the remand for fresh consideration.

Issue (i): Whether PVC coated periglass sleevings or silicon elastomer coated glass sleevings are textile articles falling under Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff.

Analysis: The expression 'textile' was not defined in the tariff. The Court applied the settled approach that in fiscal statutes, where no definition is provided, the entry must be understood in its popular or common parlance sense and not in a purely technical or dictionary sense. On that test, glass fibre sleeving, though capable of being described as textile material in a technological sense, is not treated as textile in ordinary commercial understanding.

Conclusion: The articles do not fall within Item 53 of the Indian Customs Tariff and are not textiles.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere with the departmental classification and uphold the remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: Classification by the departmental authorities is not immune from judicial review where it proceeds on an erroneous view of the statutory expression or an improper interpretative test. Since the authorities had proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the scope of 'textile', interference was justified, and the remand for determination under the appropriate tariff entry remained proper.

Conclusion: The remand to the departmental authorities was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The goods were held not to be textile articles under Item 53, and the direction for fresh classification under the tariff was maintained, leaving the departmental authorities to determine the correct entry.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal tariff classification, where an entry is undefined, the decisive test is the meaning in common or commercial parlance, and a classification based on an erroneous technical understanding of the entry is open to judicial correction.

---