Case: The Collector Of Customs, Madras Vs. K. Ganga Setty

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 as horse feed the proper item within which the goods imported fell was Item 42, Fodder etc.6. 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 the departmental authorities themselves on this matter.7. With very great respect to the learned Judges we are unable to agree with them both as regards the function and jurisdiction of the Court in matters of this type, as well as in their actual construction of the relevant entries in the Import Trade Circular. As regards the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court it is sufficient to refer to the decision in Venkateswaran v. Wadhwani [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1327 (S.C.)]. That was a case where a party moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and not as here under Section 45 of the Specific Relief Act under which the power of the court to interfere is certainly narrower and not wider. This Court proceeded on the basis that it is primarily for the Import Control authorities to determine the head or entry under which any particular commodity fell; but that if in doing so, these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt, i.e., if the construction was perverse, then it was a case in which the Court was competent to interfere. In other words, if there are two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear, and one of them which was in favour of Revenue was adopted, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation favourable to the subject appeals to the Court as the better one to adopt.8. In the present case it could not be contended that uncrushed oats did not answer the description of "grain" and therefore the decision of the Customs authorities holding that the oats imported fell within Item 32 could not be said to be a view which on no reasonable interpretation could be entertained. In other words, the conclusion or decision of the Customs authorities was 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 Johnsons famous definition of "oats" in his Dictionary, it is sufficient to point out that oats, though they may serve as food for horses, is also used as human food, in other words it is not by its nature or characteristic capable of serving solely as food for animals and incapable of use in the human dietary.9. For instance, all coarse grains like Ragi and Khambu serve as food for man as well as for cattle. The mere fact therefore that a grain is capable of being used as horse or other cattle feed does not make it "fodder" excluding it from the category of grain to which it admittedly belongs. The decision of the Assistant Collector and of the Collector on appeal holding the oats imported by the respondent to be grain cannot therefore be characterised as perverse or mala fide and in the circumstances we consider that the learned judges of the High Court erred in interfering with the order of the appellant.10. In this particular case, however, the matter is placed beyond the pale of controversy by the specific reference to "oats" in Entry 32 where "grain" is classified into two categories, "oats" and "other grains". It is apparent that unfortunately the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the entry in full, because, in the course of the judgment they point out that the construction of Entry 42 would be different if there had been a specific reference to oats in Entry 32.11. Learned Counsel for the respondent laid some stress on the respondent having been misled by the answer of the Deputy Chief Controller of Exports to a query as regards the scope of Entry 42. The answer 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 Licence No. XXIII."12. 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 goods for import was entered into in the beginning of June, 1952, 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 would fall within Item 32 but if the same was crushed, it would be "fodder" within Item 42. The respondent however, denied having received this letter and there is no specific finding on this point by the learned Judges of the High Court. We do not propose to record any finding either. We are drawing attention to this matter merely for pointing out that it is a matter which the authorities could properly take into account in modifying, if they consider that the respondent has really been misled, the quantum of penalty imposed on the respondent.13.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]8. In the present case it could not be contended that uncrushed oats did not answer the description of "grain" and therefore the decision of the Customs authorities holding that the oats imported fell within Item 32 could not be said to be a view which on no reasonable interpretation could be entertained. In other words, the conclusion or decision of the Customs authorities was 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 Johnsons famous definition of "oats" in his Dictionary, it is sufficient to point out that oats, though they may serve as food for horses, is also used as human food, in other words it is not by its nature or characteristic capable of serving solely as food for animals and incapable of use in the human dietary.For instance, all coarse grains like Ragi and Khambu serve as food for man as well as for cattle. The mere fact therefore that a grain is capable of being used as horse or other cattle feed does not make it "fodder" excluding it from the category of grain to which it admittedly belongs. The decision of the Assistant Collector and of the Collector on appeal holding the oats imported by the respondent to be grain cannot therefore be characterised as perverse or mala fide and in the circumstances we consider that the learned judges of the High Court erred in interfering with the order of theletter 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 goods for import was entered into in the beginning of June, 1952, 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 would fall within Item 32 but if the same was crushed, it would be "fodder" within Item 42. The respondent however, denied having received this letter and there is no specific finding on this point by the learned Judges of the High Court. We do not propose to record any finding either. We are drawing attention to this matter merely for pointing out that it is a matter which the authorities could properly take into account in modifying, if they consider that the respondent has really been misled, the quantum of penalty imposed on the respondent.