Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS &CENTRAL EXCISE & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S. LETHRAJ JESSUMAL& SONS & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/1996
BENCH:
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
BENCH:
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
KIRPAL B.N. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 489 JT 1996 (3) 20
1996 SCALE (2)33
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appeal upon certificate impugns a judgment of a
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
The respondent had imported miniauthorised switches for
use in electronic hearing aids which it manufactured. lt
appears that there are two types ot such switches, the
conventional one then being wafer switches and the other,
newly innovated, being reed switches. It was the latter type
of switch which was imported. The Customs authorities took
the view that the respondents’ import licence did not cover
reed switches and they were not entitled to the concessional
rate of import duty. The stand of the Customs authorities
was, ultimately, assailed in the writ petition filed by the
respondent before the High Court. The Writ petition was
allowed. An appeal was preferred and it is the Judgment in
appeal which is under challenge before us.
The High Court in the impugned order noted that the
stand of the Customs authorities was that the words
"switches, miniauthorised" as component parts of hearing
aids should be understood to mean only those types of
switches which were generally used in the manufacture of
hearinq aids at the time of publication of the Import Policy
for the relevant year, namely 1977, and that these words
could not be said to include any other type of switch even
if such other type of switch could be used in the
manufacture of hearing aids. The Division Bench observed, in
our view, very rightly, that such an interpretation over-
looked that industry was not static and that there was
continuous technical progress therein. New processes and new
methods developed from time to time and new material and
components or types of components superseded others. lt was
unreasonable to give a static interpretation to words used
in a tariff schedule ignoring the rapid march of technology.
Having regard to the technical opinion that reed swithces
would improve the performance of hearing aids, the Hiqh
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Court held that reed switches were covered by the tariff
entry. The High Court also noted that it was not the case of
the Customs authorities that the respondent was trying to
divert the imported reed switches from the manufacture of
hearing aids to another purpose.
We do not think that we can put it better. Progress
cannot be stifled by an over-rigid interpretation of lmport
Policy or Customs tariff. Both must be read as they stand on
the date of importation and whatever is reasonably covered
thereby must be allowed to be imported regardless of the
fact that it was not in existence or even contemplated when
the policy or tariff was formulated.
The appeal is dismissed. The bank guarantee given by
the respondent pursuant to the order of this Court dated
25.3.83 shall stand discharged. There shall be no order as
to costs.