TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Imported liquid containers for sprayers classified as hand-operated, not power-driven, in customs dispute.</h1> <h3>VV. IYER Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> VV. IYER Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 414 (SC), 1973 AIR 194, 1973 (1) SCC 148 Issues:- Interpretation of import licence description- Classification of imported goods under relevant Import Trade Control Schedule- Authority of Customs authorities in determining classification- Judicial review of Customs authorities' decisionsInterpretation of import licence description:The appellant, a sole proprietor importing agricultural machinery parts, imported liquid containers intended for sprayers under an import licence. The Customs authorities contended that the sprayers were hand-operated and not power-driven, falling under a different category in the Import Trade Control Schedule. The appellant argued that the sprayers functioned with power-driven pumps, aligning with the import licence description. The Collector of Customs found the appellant guilty of unauthorized importation, imposing a penalty. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the distinction between power-driven and hand-operated machinery.Classification of imported goods under relevant Import Trade Control Schedule:The main issue revolved around whether the imported goods fell under Item 74(vi) or 74(x) of the Import Trade Control Schedule. The appellant claimed the goods were spare parts of power-driven agricultural machinery, as per the import licence. Conversely, the Customs authorities asserted the goods were hand-operated sprayers, not covered by the import licence. The Collector's findings supported the Customs authorities' classification, leading to the penalty imposed on the appellant.Authority of Customs authorities in determining classification:The judgment highlighted the Customs authorities' role in interpreting and applying the Import Trade Control Schedule. It emphasized that unless the authorities' decision was found to be perverse, judicial interference was limited. The judgment referred to previous decisions emphasizing that the High Court or Supreme Court should not intervene if the Customs authorities' interpretation was reasonable. The Collector's decision regarding the classification of the imported goods was deemed valid and not subject to judicial review.Judicial review of Customs authorities' decisions:The judgment underscored the limited scope of judicial review over Customs authorities' classification decisions. It cited precedents where courts refrained from interfering unless the authorities' interpretation was unreasonable or perverse. The judgment concluded that the High Court correctly upheld the Customs authorities' findings regarding the Import Trade Control Schedule classification. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the decision of the Bombay High Court without costs awarded in this case.
TaxTMI 