NATIONAL HURRICANE WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos 605-D,562-D and 563-D of 1963. I am reciting only the facts of Civil Writ No. 605-D of 1963 as the learned counsel agree that the decision rendered in this case would govern the other to petitions also.

(2.) The petitioner was granted an import licence dated 3rd September, 1960 for

(3.) Before I deal with the rival contentions, I may point out that if the decision of the case turned only on the appreciation of the nature of the goods and the evidence for fixing the particular entry applicable out of two or more which may possibly apply. I would have been reluctant to interfere in writ jurisdiction, I am, however, of the opinion that the authorities concerned have fallen into a fundamental error as to the scope of the various entries and their jurisdiction and that makes it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The terms 'tin scrap' and 'tinplate scrap' have not been defined in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff and one has necessarily to go by the ordinary meaning of the terms. Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on clause 2(j) of the Iron and Steel (control) Order, 1956, (as amended up to the 1st January, 1959) as indicative of the meaning generally given to the term's scrap' in the field of legislation. According to this clause 'scrap' means all iron or steel material which is commonly known as scrap and includes defective iron or steel material whether it is suitable only re-rolling of re-melting or can be used for to other purposes. The argument of Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal is that merely because of scrap can be used for purchases other than smelting and remarking does of alter it from its essential character of being scrap. Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal has also placed strong reliance on the observation of the additional Collector of Customs when he says-