Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : The point involved in this appeal which comes before us on a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) granted by the High Court of Madras is a very short one and relates to the nature and extent of the jurisdiction possessed by the High Court in considering the validity of an order of the Customs Authorities interpreting the provisions of the entries in the Tariff Schedule as regards the imposition of duties.

2. The respondent imported from Australia a quantity of oats which was described in the indent, contract and shipping documents as "standard feed-oats". The commodity imported consisted of oats in whole grain. The question raised related to the proper classification of the goods imported under the Import Trade Control Schedules current during the period July to December 1952, when the consignment reached India. The controversy centered round the point whether the "feed-oats" fell within item 42 or within item 32 of the Circular. Item 42 ran :

"Fodder, bran and pollards - O.G.L. - Soft" i.e., this item was covered by an open general licence and so no special import licence was necessary for the import of these goods from a soft currency area, while as regards item 32 the entry ran:

"Grain, not otherwise specified, including broken grain but excluding flour-

(a) oats

(b) others -Ports -Nil-A.U." which meant that a licence was necessary for the importation of the goods specified in it which would be granted by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports or Exports at Calcutta and Bombay, if they were the ports of entry, and by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, if they were to be imported through Madras; "nil" that no quotas were specified limiting the quantity to be imported and that actual users (A.U.) could apply for the licence.

3. The respondent who carried on business in fodder under the name and style of Balakrishna Flour Mills placed an order with an Australian firm for the supply of whole grain "feed-oats", without obtaining any licence for the import. The goods arrived in Madras on August 1, 1952, and when the respondent attempted to clear the goods, the Customs Authorities insisted no the production of a licence before he would be permitted to do so. The Assistant Collector held that the goods imported fell within item 32 and as admittedly the respondent held no licence from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras, covering the import, there had been a contravention of s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with S. 3 (2) of the Import and Export Control Act 1947, and so proceeded to deal with the violation under S. 167 (8) of the Sea Customs Act. He directed the confiscation of the goods and imposed as fine of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of confiscation, if the respondent desired to clear the goods. An appeal filed to the Collector of Customs was rejected and thereafter the respondent moved the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus under S. 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. In his affidavit in support of the application the respondent besides contending that oats in full-grain fell within the head fodder under item 42, set out earlier, because (1) he had imported them for being made available solely for feeding race-horses at Bangalore, (2) that in South India oats was not used as human food but only as feed for horses and (3) that in any event, he had been misled by an answer that he received from the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Madras, of whom he had made an enquiry as to whether feedoats could be imported under an open general licence under Serial No. 42 and had received an affirmative answer. The learned Single Judge who heard the application dismissed it on the ground that the order of the Customs Authorities classifying uncrushed feed-oats as grain and not as fodder could not be said to be either perverse or mala fide and that consequently the Court could not interfere with the decision of the authorities. An appeal was preferred there-from to a