TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (4) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1)(e) granted by the High, Court of Madras is a very short one and relates to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction posses- sed by the High Court in considering the validity of an order of the Customs Authorities interpreting the provisions of the entries in the Tariff Schedule as regards the imposition of duties. The respondent imported from Australia a quantity of oats which was described in the indent, contract and shipping documents as "'standard feed-oats". The commodity imported consisted of oats in whole grain. The question raised related to the proper classification of the goods imported under the Import Trade Control Schedules current during the period July to December 1952 when the consignment reached India. The contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Collector hold that. the goods imported fell within item 32 and as admittedly the respondent held no licence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras covering the import, there had been a contravention of a. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with s. 3(2) of the Import & Export Control Act, 1947 and so proceeded to deal with the violation under s. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. He directed the confiscation of the good sand imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in lieu of confiscation, if the. respondent desired to clear the goods. An appeal filed to the Collector of Customs was rejected and thereafter the respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus under s. 45 of the Specific Relief Act. In his affidavi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ification within which an imported commodity fell was not final but was open to judicial review and had ultimately to be decided by the Courts, (2) In the case before the Court, entry 32 reading "grain" had, in the absence of any specific entry regarding oats to be read as excluding all grains which would be "fodder" i.e., which were usually used as cattle or animal feed, and that as the respondent had imported the oats for use as horse-feed the proper item within which the goods imported fell was item 42-Fodder etc. In arriving at this conclusion the learned Judges referred to the answer of the Deputy Chief Controller to the query by the respondent to which we have adverted earlier, as a circumstance indicative of the doubts entertained by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decision of the Customs authorities holding that the oats imported fell within item 32 could not be Raid to be a view which on no reasonable interpretation could be entertained. In other words, the conclusion or decision of the Customs authorities wag rationally supportable. We consider that even if there was no specific reference to "oats" in entry 32, any particular species of grain cannot be excluded merely because it is capable of being used as cattle or horse feed. The word "'fodder" is defined in the Oxford' dictionary as 'dried food, hay, straw etc. for stall feeding Cattle". Without resorting to , Johnson's famous definition of "'oats" in his Dictionary, it is sufficient to point out that oats, though they may s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r which was stated to have misled was in these terms : "Feed oats classifiable under serial 42 of Part IV can be imported under Open General License No. XXIII". an answer by no means a model of clarity. This letter is dated September 14, 1951, and it is the case of the respondent that he placed an order for the import of "feed- oats" because he was led to believe that for its import no licence was necessary. The contract for the purchase of the foods for import was entered into in the beginning of June, 1-952, but before that date the Deputy Chief Controller wrote a further letter to the respondent on January 1, 1952, clarifying the answer he gave in his earlier letter, and pointing out that whereas if the oats were in whole grain it wou....