- (1.) More often than not, in the interpretation of statutes, the Court should make a purposive interpretation of their provisions. A strictly literal interpretation may not serve the purpose of justice. The same principle should be applied to the interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962 and the related statutes and rules, for example the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the schedules appended thereto. The subject matter of controversy in this case are all the components of a battery operated tricycle, except its battery, packed together and imported into India. The Customs authorities do not accept the self-assessment made by the writ petitioners that these items are parts of a motorcycle and are making an assessment under Section 17(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, as submitted by Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) They have raised the following query while making this assessment as contained in Annexure P-4 at page 30 of the writ petition : "PI. submit necessary eft. in terms of import licensing note 2(II)c to the Chapter 87."
(3.) If According to Mr. Sen, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, the concerned note under Chapter 87 of the current Import and Export Policy related to "a vehicle". His client was not importing a vehicle but parts thereof.;