MYSORE ESSENTIAL OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner purchased sandalwood from District Forest Officer, Sathyamangalam (Tamil Nadu), and District Forest Officer, Salem (Tamil Nadu). He converted them into 'sandalwood heart chips' at his factory. Three certificates of origin were obtained by him from District Forest Officer, Chittoor dated 8th March, 1984, evidenced by exhibits P1, P2 and P3. They were verified and transit permits were granted by the District Forest Officer, Chittoor. They were physically verified by the Forest Range Officer, Kuppam. They were transported to Kerala for the purpose of export. The petitioner took steps for exporting the goods by the ship sailing to Taiwan. The foreign buyers of the petitioner had opened irrevocable letter of credit No. BD. 78379 dated 22nd March, 1984, with the Chartered Bank, Madras. The petitioner had applied for clearance order in form No. 2 as enjoined by Rule 3 of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules of 1975 from the District Forest Officer, (Vigilance), Palarivattom. The sandalwood chips were kept in the godown of the shippers, M/s. D.B. Khona. The petitioner produced before the respondent, the Collector of Customs, Cochin, all necessary documents inclusive of clearance order for export in form No. 2 given by the Divisional Forest Officer, Palarivattom, under the Transit Rules, 1975, seeking permission to export the 8 tonnes of sandalwood chips to the foreign buyers. They were so submitted to the respondent on 18th April, 1984. It is alleged that they were brought to the port on 7th May, 1984, and the officers of the respondent took samples of sandalwood chips kept in bags. The respondent did not take any step thereafter to pemit the shipping of the sandalwood chips. It seems the appraising officer connected with the respondent expressed some doubts regarding the sandalwood chips sought to be exported to the shipping agent of the petitioner. The shippers addressed a communication exhibit P4 dated 9th June, 1984, to the Assistant Collector of Customs requesting him to inspect a few selected bags as a lot. The Deputy Collector of Customs personally inspected the goods on 17th May, 1984. Even then there is no action in the matter enabling the shipment of the goods. The respondents are purposely delaying the matter. The doubts expressed by the appraising officer and/or the respondent, as aforesaid, is due to a misapprehension and failure to understand the true scope and impact of Annexure II, Article 4 of the Import and Export Policy, April 1984 - -March 1985, Vol. II - - 'Export Licensing'. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 'sandalwood heart chips' tendered by him for export is understood in the particular trade as 'sandalwood chips'. The petitioner is disabled from exporting the goods which has caused him irreparable injury. This is due to the refusal of the respondent to act in accordance with law.

(2.) THE respondents has filed a detailed counter -affidavit dated 25th June, 1984. In substance, the defence is that the goods offered for export did not fall under the description 'chips' as envisaged by Annexure II paragraph 2 and Clause 4 of the Import and Export Trade Control Policy, relevant for the period April, 1984 to March, 1985, 'Volume II Export Licensing', page 34. Annexure II deals with 'the policy for export of wood and timber'. Clause 2 states that for the purposes of export policy of wood and timber the following definitions will be adopted:

(3.) THE crucial question posed is: What do the words, 'sandalwood chips', occurring in Annexure II, Article 4 of the Import and Export Policy (1984 -85) convey? What does it mean? What is the test to be applied? Is it dictionary meaning that is to be adopted; or should the words be understood, as in 'common parlance'; or is it a technical word, to be understood, in a technical sense? The matter is not capable of a ready answer. The answer depends upon a variety of factors and requires investigation. The approach to the question involved, has not been made in a proper perspective or from a proper angle. The proper test to be applied has not been evaluated. It is true that for determining as to whether a particular item falls within a particular entry or not, or as to whether it is governed by a particular entry, the authorities have to find out on the basis of relevant facts, how it is understood in common paralance or in the commercial word or trade circle. This is the ordinary rule. In so doing one can refer to the dictionary. But, that will not prevail or be conclusive. This is so only if the relevant word used in the taxing statute is one of every day use. In that case alone, it must be construed as understood in common parlance and it must be given its popular sense, meaning thereby 'that sense which people conversant with the subject -matter with which a statute is dealing would attribute to it. The test should not be applied as a 'wooden rule' or 'mechanically'.