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 New processes and new methods developed  from time  to time  and new  material and components or  types of components superseded others.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.