Case: Collector Of Customs, Bombay Vs. Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. &amp; Ors

Advice which suggested that wool wastes may consist of free fibres and clippings, cuttings, etc. These should not consist of long lengths of yarn or of rovings or slivers. The Tribunal was of the view that rovings, slivers/tops of short lengths or ends alone could be considered as wool wastes. The wool contents of the present disputed consignments are more than 98 per cent or completely wool and it is not mixed with any other wastes. The lengths of samples were not less than 3 metres but ranged between 3 to 30 metres or even more. It was, therefore, urged that these could not be treated appropriately as wool wastes.The Tribunal, however, noted that the experts produced by the importers are said to be based their views on their experience, no literature or evidence regarding accepted trade practice with regard to any technical literature has been produced. The experts had no occasion to see the goods in dispute. It appeared before the Tribunal when the consignment was examine for the first time, the customs staff reported that the goods could be considered as wool wastes. The expert panels report was not unanimous. The report did not say that the subject-goods were the result of deliberate cutting of slivers. It said that the fibres were of varying, different lengths. But the majority report considered that the goods were not wastes apparently on the basis of the length of the fibres being above 3 metres. The term "wool waste" could cover slivers provided these were not deliberately cut and were not of uniform length. The evidence produced in support of the contention that slivers up to, and even more than 15 metres in length could be considered as wastes was, without justification, ignored. The Tribunal noted all these. It is clear that the goods comprised fibres of uniform length, the result of deliberate cutting. That was the basis on which the Additional Collector proceeded but there was no evidence to that effect. After taking all these factors and submissions into consideration, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that these are classed as "wool wastes". The propriety and the validity of this finding is under challenge. 4. The Additional Solicitor-General, appearing for the appellant, contended that the Tribunal has ignored vital material and relevant factors. He submitted that Technical Committees report about the expression "wool waste", C.C.C.N.s observations and the Boards Tariff Advice had been ignored. We are unable to accept this criticism advanced on behalf of the Revenue.The short question involved before the Tribunal and the validity of which is under challenge in these appeals is, whether the goods in question are wool wastes. If these are then these are entitled to exemption under the relevant notification and if these are not wool wastes, these are not entitled to exemption. 5. The expression "wool wastes" is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification. This expression is not an expression of art. It may be understood as in most of financial measures where the expressions are not defined not in a technical or preconceived basis but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with these goods as mentioned hereinbefore. The Tribunal proceeded on that basis. The Tribunal has not ignored the Technical Committees observations. We have noted in brief the Tribunals handling of that report. The Tribunal has neither ignored the observations of C.C.C.N. nor the Boards Tariff Advice. These observations have been examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. One of the basic factual disputes was long length of sliver tops. Having regard to the long length, we find that the Tribunal was not in error. Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this case are wool wastes, should be so considered or not is primarily and essentially a question of fact. The decision on such a question of fact must be arrive at without ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles. Judged by these yardsticks the finding of the Tribunal in this case is unassailable. We are, however, of the view that if a fact finding authority comes to a conclusion within the above parameters honestly and bona fide, the fact that another authority, be it the Supreme Court or the High Court, may have a different perspective of that question, in our opinion, is no ground to interfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding. In the new scheme of things, the Tribunals have been entrusted with the authority and the jurisdiction to decide the questions involving determination of the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. An appeal has been provided to this Court to oversee that the subordinate tribunals act within the law. Merely because another view might be possible by a competent court of law is no ground for interference under section 130E of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, the amplitude of appeal is unlimited. But because the jurisdiction is unlimited, there is inherent limitation imposed in such appeals. The Tribunal has not deviated from the path of correct principle and has considered all the relevant factors. If the Tribunal has acted bona fide with the natural justice by a speaking order, in our opinion, even if superior court feels that another view is possible, that is no ground for substitution of that view in exercise of power under clause (b) of section 130E of the Act.In the facts and in the circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal has acted within jurisdiction. The Tribunal has taken all relevant and material facts into consideration. The Tribunal has not ignored any relevant and material facts. The Tribunal has not applied any wrong principles of law. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is unassailable even in the appeal before this Court. 6.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The expression "wool wastes" is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification. This expression is not an expression of art. It may be understood as in most of financial measures where the expressions are not defined not in a technical or preconceived basis but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with these goods as mentioned hereinbefore. The Tribunal proceeded on that basis. The Tribunal has not ignored the Technical Committees observations. We have noted in brief the Tribunals handling of that report. The Tribunal has neither ignored the observations of C.C.C.N. nor the Boards Tariff Advice. These observations have been examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. One of the basic factual disputes was long length of sliver tops. Having regard to the long length, we find that the Tribunal was not in error.Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this case are wool wastes, should be so considered or not is primarily and essentially a question of fact.The decision on such a question of fact must be arrive at without ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles. Judged by these yardsticks the finding of the Tribunal in this case is unassailable. We are, however, of the view that if a fact finding authority comes to a conclusion within the above parameters honestly and bona fide, the fact that another authority, be it the Supreme Court or the High Court, may have a different perspective of that question, in our opinion, is no ground to interfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding. In the new scheme of things, the Tribunals have been entrusted with the authority and the jurisdiction to decide the questions involving determination of the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. An appeal has been provided to this Court to oversee that the subordinate tribunals act within the law. Merely because another view might be possible by a competent court of law is no ground for interference under section 130E of the Act though in relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, the amplitude of appeal is unlimited. But because the jurisdiction is unlimited, there is inherent limitation imposed in such appeals. The Tribunal has not deviated from the path of correct principle and has considered all the relevant factors. If the Tribunal has acted bona fide with the natural justice by a speaking order, in our opinion, even if superior court feels that another view is possible, that is no ground for substitution of that view in exercise of power under clause (b) of section 130E of the Act.In the facts and in the circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal has acted within jurisdiction. The Tribunal has taken all relevant and material facts into consideration. The Tribunal has not ignored any relevant and material facts. The Tribunal has not applied any wrong principles of law. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is unassailable even in the appeal before this Court.