Alternative remedy and tariff classification: deposit in appeal was inadequate, and industrial methyl-alcohol was treated as a chemical.

An appeal requiring prior deposit of the full disputed duty was not treated as an adequate alternative remedy, so it did not bar writ jurisdiction where the importer could not meet that condition. On tariff classification, impure methyl-alcohol or wood-naptha used as an industrial solvent was held to fall outside the entry for spirits or preparations containing spirit, because item 22(4)(b) had to be read in context and, applying ejusdem generis, was confined to potable spirits and similar preparations. The substance was therefore a chemical under item 28, and the customs classification under item 22(4)(b) was incorrect.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence of an appeal under the Sea Customs Act barred the writ petition when the appeal could proceed only on deposit of the full duty demanded. (ii) Whether impure methyl-alcohol / wood-naptha was correctly assessable under item 22(4)(b) of the Indian Tariff Schedule as a spirit or other preparation containing spirit, or whether it fell under item 28 as a chemical.

Issue (i): Whether the existence of an appeal under the Sea Customs Act barred the writ petition when the appeal could proceed only on deposit of the full duty demanded.

Analysis: The appellate remedy was not an effective alternative remedy because the statutory condition precedent required deposit of the entire duty demanded before the appeal could be maintained. Where the amount demanded was far beyond the value of the imported goods and the appellant was unable to make the deposit, the remedy could not be treated as adequate for barring writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy failed and the writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether impure methyl-alcohol / wood-naptha was correctly assessable under item 22(4)(b) of the Indian Tariff Schedule as a spirit or other preparation containing spirit, or whether it fell under item 28 as a chemical.

Analysis: Item 22(4) appeared in a tariff section dealing with food-preparing products, beverages and alcoholic liquors. The listed examples in that item were potable spirits, and the general words had to be read in their context. Applying ejusdem generis, the residual expressions in item 22(4)(b) were confined to spirits of the same class, namely potable spirits or preparations of that nature. Impure methyl-alcohol used as an industrial solvent was not a potable spirit and could not be brought under that item merely because it contained spirit. On the admitted and recorded facts, it was a chemical and the proper classification remained item 28.

Conclusion: The assessment under item 22(4)(b) was wrong and the petitioner succeeded on classification.

Final Conclusion: The customs demand and the appellate orders were liable to be quashed, and the respondents were directed to forbear from acting on them, while leaving liberty to proceed according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff entry for spirits and preparations containing spirit must be construed in its statutory context and, where the listed items are potable spirits, the general words are confined to that class by ejusdem generis; an appeal conditioned on prior deposit of the whole disputed demand is not an adequate alternative remedy for excluding writ relief.

---