P.B.Mukharji, J. - (1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. It is directed against the decision of the Assistant Collector for Appraisement, dated 30th June, 1955, assessing Armco Nestable Culverts complete with accessories under Item 63 (28) of the First Schedule of the Import Tariff under the Indian Tariff Act. The applicant appealed to the Collector of Customs who dismissed the appeal on 11-7-1955.
(2.) The appellate order of the Customs states the reason for assessing under Item 63 (28) of the Indian Customs Tariff in the following terms : "It appears from the descriptive literature produced that Armco Nestable Culverts in question are made of fabricated corrugated steel sheets. These arc used as tunnelled drain for the passage of water under road bridges The main function of these culverts is to divert water in a particular channel. These therefore cannot be considered to fall within the purview of 'steel structures' for construction of bridges assessable under Item 63 (9) Indian Customs Tariff as contended by the appellants. The goods in question were therefore correctly assessed to duty under Item 63 (28) Indian Customs Tariff. I see no reason to interfere with the Assistant Collector's order in original. The appeal is accordingly rejected." I have come to the conclusion that not one of the reasons put forward by the Collector of Customs in the appeal can be sustained as a matter of law and as a question of construction of Item 63 (9) and Item 63 (28) of the Indian Customs Tariff.
(3.) It is admitted that the material in question is fabricated corrugated steel sheets. Item 63 (28) of the Indian Customs Tariff must be remembered to be a residuary provision. In naming the article in this item the language used is "all sorts of iron and steel and manufactures thereof not otherwise specified". Application of a residuary article must always be made with a good deal of caution for it can only be attracted where either expressly, or by necessary implication no provision can be found to apply to the articles in question. The other consideration to insist is that a citizen cannot be taxed except by the clearest language of Statute or by its most compelling implication, and cannot be taxed by doubt and vagueness.;