Commercial meaning of marble prevails for import control, with calcareous stones classified accordingly and penalty moderated.

A commercial import-control entry for "marble" was construed in its trade sense rather than a strict geological or petrological sense, because the policy did not define the term and a narrow reading would frustrate the policy objective. The ISI specification was treated as a relevant guide to quality, but not the exclusive test of whether imported calcareous stones were marble in commerce. Calcareous stones of specific gravity 2.5 and above, including stones used as marble tiles, could therefore fall within the marble entry on commercial understanding. The classification and confiscatory order were upheld, while the penalty was reduced in view of bona fide belief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the term "marble" in Sr. No. 62 of Appendix 2 Part-B of the Import and Export Policy AM. 1988-91 was to be understood in its strict geological or petrological sense; (ii) whether, in the absence of a specific definition, the commercial understanding of marble was to be gathered only from the ISI specification; and (iii) whether any calcareous stone of specific gravity 2.5 and above could be treated as marble despite the distinct mention of marble, travertine, ecaussine and other calcareous stones in Heading 25.15 of the Customs Tariff Act.

Issue (i): Whether the term "marble" in Sr. No. 62 of Appendix 2 Part-B of the Import and Export Policy AM. 1988-91 was to be understood in its strict geological or petrological sense.

Analysis: The entry in the Import Policy did not define marble, and the Customs Tariff also did not supply a technical definition in the charging context. The expression therefore had to be read in the commercial setting of a restricted import policy intended to conserve foreign exchange for essential imports. A narrow geological meaning would defeat that policy by excluding similar ornamental calcareous stones that are commercially treated as marble. The words used in the explanatory material indicated that marble is normally crystalline, but not invariably so, and the absence of complete recrystallisation did not take the goods outside the commercial scope of the entry.

Conclusion: The term "marble" was not confined to its strict geological or petrological sense and was to be understood in commercial parlance.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of a specific definition, the commercial understanding of marble was to be gathered only from the ISI specification.

Analysis: The ISI specification was relevant as a guide to quality marble, but it did not exhaust the commercial meaning of the word. The standard itself recognised that marble varied widely in physical properties and that other polished stones were also used in trade as marble. The imported goods were shown by expert materials and reports to be capable of taking polish and to be treated commercially as marble, even if they did not satisfy the stricter ISI notion of metamorphic recrystallised limestone.

Conclusion: The ISI specification was not the sole test, and the goods could still be treated as marble in commercial parlance.

Issue (iii): Whether any calcareous stone of specific gravity 2.5 and above could be treated as marble despite the distinct mention of marble, travertine, ecaussine and other calcareous stones in Heading 25.15 of the Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis: Heading 25.15 described a family of calcareous monumental and building stones of specific gravity 2.5 and above. The separate mention of marble, travertine, ecaussine and other calcareous stones did not justify confining marble only to a pure metamorphic variety, especially when the policy entry used the broader commercial expression "marble". The imported goods were calcareous stones of the requisite specific gravity, intended for use as marble tiles, and the burden to show a special commercial identity outside marble was not discharged. On that basis, the departmental classification was a reasonable one, though the penalty deserved moderation in light of the appellants' bona fide belief.

Conclusion: The goods were covered by the marble entry in commercial parlance, and the classification and confiscatory order were upheld, subject to reduction of penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the main issue of classification, but the penalty was reduced, resulting in only partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff or import-control entry uses a commercial commodity description without a statutory technical definition, the expression must ordinarily be construed in its commercial sense in light of the policy objective, and a reasonable classification based on that understanding will not be disturbed merely because an alternative technical view is possible.

---