Trio Marketing Pvt. Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
exemption - infusion sets are (intravenous cannulae and tubing)--specific head prevails over general (interpretative rules)--eligible to exemption notfn. 208/81-cus.classification - scalp vein sets are not intravenous cannulae and tubing--not eligible notfn. no. 208/81.cus. - ruma pal, j.1. the petitioners have imported hakko brand scalp vein sets (hereinafter referred to as the goods). the goods arrived in calcutta in august 1990. the petitioners have described the goods as intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use in their bill of entry. the petitioners claim that the said goods are wholly exempt from customs duty being covered by item 19 under the heading 'life saving equipment' contained in the customs notification no. 208/81 (hereinafter referred to as the first notification).2. the respondents have refused to permit the petitioner to clear the said goods and have claimed customs duty at the rate of 40% ad valorem.3. it was agreed that no affidavits need be filed but that the court could determine the questions involved in this case on the basis of the documents produced.4. the notification no. 208-cus., dated 22-9-1981 provides for a general exemption of the whole of the customs duty and additional duty leviable under the first schedule and section 3 of the customs tariff act, 1975 respectively in respect of the scheduled items. heading 'b' in the schedule to the said notification relates to life saving equipments. item 19 under heading 'b' of the schedule to the said notification reads as 'intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use'.5. the following documents have been relied upon by the petitioners in support of their contention that the said goods are intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use and therefore exempted from payment of customs and additional duty -(1) letter dated 11th march, 1986 from the deputy chief controller of imports & exports stating that 'infusion sets; transfusion sets; butterfly needles for intravenous infusion...and conversion devices is covered under entry 21 of list 2 of appendix 6 of import & export policy 1985-88 (vol. i), and its import is allowed under ogl by all persons subject to the conditions laid down;'(2) a similar letter dated 11th february, 1987 from the deputy chief controller of imports & exports;(3) a letter dated 26th july, 1988 from the office of the chief controller of imports & exports clarifying that butterfly needles infusion sets fall under the entry no. 8, life saving equipments as per list 2 of appendix 6 to the import policy 1988-91, volume i and was importable by all persons.(4) a letter dated 22nd august, 1986 from the directorate general of health services stating that infusion sets are known by various names but 'design features and usage of all is the same. these sets are meant for giving intravasculon drip and is covered under appendix 6 item 2 under serial no. 19 of the notification no. 208/81, dated 22-9-1981'.(5) a letter dated 29-7-1988 from the directorate general, health services stating that 'infusion sets, scalp vein sets is for giving block iv drip and is covered under serial no. 19 intravenous cannulae of notification no. 208/81-customs, dated 22-9-1981'.(6) an unstarred question of the lok sabha proceedings dated 27-8-1987 in which in answer to questions -'(a) whether various types of infusion sets or iv sets which are used for giving iv solution drip to patients are eligible for duty free import as life saving equipment under current customs tariff; and(b) if so, under which notification, heading and serial number of the said customs tariff ?it was stated : under serial no. 19 of schedule 'b' of notification no. 208/81-cus., dated 22-9-1981 as amended, 'intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use' are eligible for duty free import into india. further, under the provisions of schedule 'c' of the same notification, any life saving equipment not mentioned in schedule 'b' is also eligible for duty free import, if the director general or deputy director general or assistant director general of health services, new delhi, certifies in each individual case that they are life saving equipments.(7) a bill of entry of another importer relating to iv cannulae & tubing for long term use under which scalp vein sets were released without payment of duty 'as per tribunal order no. 313/88-b.2 dated 23-5-1988'.(8) a decision of the cegat, special bench b. 2 new delhi in lab india chemicals and ors. v. collector of customs reported in ; which held -'there is, however, no denying the fact that the goods in question are life saving equipments. therefore, in keeping with the declared intention of the exemption notification and the ogl and bearing in mind that quite a few medical experts have from time to time, considered scalp vein sets as coming within the relevant entry of the exemption notification and ogl the bench finds no reason to disagree with the earlier two judgments of this tribunal on the issue.'(9) the decision of cegat in unival surgical traders v. collector of customs, cochin reported in (tri.) in which it was held that scalp vein sets (hakko brand) are intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use, hence entitled to benefit under notfn. 208/81-cus. -as stated above, the dy. chief controller of imports and exports has clarified in his letter that the imported goods namely 'scalp vein sets' are covered under entry 21 of list 2 of appendix 6 to am 1985-88 slad entry no. 21 of list 2 of appendix 6 in am 1983-88 and entry at sl. no. 19 of schedule 'b' of the notfn. 208-cus., dated 22-9-1981 are identically worded. under these circumstances when imported goods namely 'scalp vein sets are considered as intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use for itc purposes as per the clarification given by the licensing authorities we think that the benefit of the said notification under its sl. no. 19 of schedule 'b' be not denied to the appellants'.(10) the decision of cegat special bench 'b' in k. hargovindas & company, bombay and anr. v. collector of customs, bombay, reported in 1989 (22) ecr 563 in which the bench approved the earlier bench decision in unival surgical traders v. collector of customs, cochin.6. two letters dated 16-10-1990 and 12-12-1990 were written by and/or on behalf of the petitioner to the collector of customs, being the respondent no. 2 herein, asking for release of the said goods without payment of any customs or additional duty on the basis of the documents listed above.7. according to the petitioner no reply was given by the respondent no. 2 to the said letters.8. samples of hakko brand scalp vein sets were produced before this court by the petitioners.9. the petitioners have challenged the refusal of the respondents to release the said goods and have contended(1) in view of the clarifications issued by the directorate general of health services, the controller of imports and exports and the findings of the cegat there could be no dispute that hakko brand scalp vein sets were intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use.(2) the customs authority in calcutta were bound by the decisions of the cegat. reliance has been placed on the decision of the bombay high court in caprihans india ltd. v. union of india reported in : 1991ecr79(bombay) in this regard.(3) the customs authorities had consistently released hakko brand scalp vein sets without claiming payment of any duty at bombay and delhi. importers in calcutta could not be discriminated against. reliance has been placed on the decision of this court in collector of customs, calcutta v. mitsuny electronic works reported in : 1987(30)elt345(cal) in which the division bench held :'there cannot be double standard of judgment, one for calcutta port and the other for the bombay port. if it is allowed then there would be discrimination between an importer at bombay and an importer at calcutta which cannot be permitted. since the import policy and customs act are all india policy and statute, it is eminently desirable that there should be an uniformity of construction by the authorities in applying the provisions of the said act and the policy failing which the court will interfere under article 226 of the constitution.'(4) fourthly it is contended that having accepted the classification of hakko brand scalp vein sets under item 19 of schedule b of the said notifications by not preferring any appeal from the decisions of cegat in hargovindas' case (supra), the customs authorities were behaving in an arbitrary fashion in refusing the benefit of the said notification to the petitioners. reliance has been placed on the decision of the supreme court in kumari shrilekha vidyarthi v. stale of u.p. and ors. reported in : air1991sc537 in which it has been held :'every state action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. it is trite that 'be you ever so high, the laws are above you'. this is what men in power must remember, always.(5) fifthly it is contended that one authority (viz. the office of the controller of imports & exports) having classified the item under 'intravenous cannulae & tubing (for long term use) under list 2 of appendix 6 of the import export policy 1985-88 there was no reason why the customs authorities should adopt a different classification.(6) sixthly it is contended that if there is any ambiguity in the expression, 'intravenous cannulae & tubing (long term use), the same should be resolved in favour of the assessee. reliance has been placed on the decision in mitsuny's case (supra) paragraph 27 and the decision of a single judge of this court in raymond woollen mills v. state of west bengal reported in (1987) 1 clj 257 in this regard.(7) finally it is contended that the customs authorities not having replied to the letters of the petitioners for release, their refusal to release was therefore bad. reliance has been placed on the decision in raymond woollen mill's case (supra).10. the respondent authorities have justified these refusal to release the goods without payment of customs duty at 40% ad valorem by referring to the following documents :(1) notification no. 65/88-cus., dated 1-3-1988 (hereinafter referred to as the second notification) which came into effect from 1-3-1989. the second notification is so far as it is material to this case provides :'the central government exempts medical equipment, their accessories and spare parts falling within chapters 29, 30, 84, 85, 90 or 94 of the first schedule to the customs tariff act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and specified in the table hereto annexed, when imported into india from(a) so much of the portion of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in said first schedule, as is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 40% ad valorem and w.e.f. 1-3-1989.(b) the whole of additional duty of customs leviable thereon under section 3 of the said customs tariff act.(c) other medical equipments149. infusion sets.(2) a letter dated 9-9-1988 from the office of the directorate general of health services, new delhi to the additional collector of customs, bombay which states:confidentialno. 2-3601113188-mgdirectorate general of health servicesnirman bhavan, new delhi -110011dated the 9th september, 1988shri joseph domnic,addl. collector of customs,new customs house, ballard estate,bombay - 400 036.sub : import of i.v. sets (solution administration set) sir,this has reference to your letter no. 3126-189188- vbicici, imf1 88-siib, dated the 19th/20th july, 1988 on the above subject. in this connection, i am to say that the issue relating to eligibility of infusion sets (i.v. sets) for the purpose of import, under the item 'intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use' appearing vide item no. 32 ogl, list 2, appendix 6 of import & export policy 1988-91 and item no. 19 list 'b' of ministry of finance notification no. 208/81-customs, dated 22-9-1981, has been examined recently on this directorate by an expert committee. after detail examination/consideration of the issue, the committee have decided that long term cannulae are different and made of special material for use in prolonged intravenous cannulation, and that simple disposal i.v. sets having a metallic needle as i.v. component, cannot be used in long term cannulation and therefore, are not eligible to be termed as long term cannulae for the purpose of import under ogl, list 2 and notification no. 208/81-customs. the committee had further added that disposable i.v. sets are also being manufactured in the country.yours faithfully,sd/- 9 -9-1988[dr. (mrs.) i.k. sharma]assistant director general (medical)(3) a letter dated 31-12-1990 from the assistant collector of customs, appraising group v, kandla to the assistant collector (appraisement) at bombay, madras, calcutta and new delhi which states :office of the collector of customscustoms house kandlaby r.p.a.d. kandla,f.no. s/26-8/90 appg. v./02/50 dtd. 31-12-1990 tothe assistant collector,appraising, gr. vb,customs house,bombay/madras/calcutta/new delhi.sir,sub: import of intravenous cannulae & tubing for long term use under notification 208/81 - matter reg :-.kindly refer to this office letter of even no. dated, 3-12-1990 on the subject cited above.as discussed in this office earlier letter, this custom house has been disallowing the benefit of notification 208/81 to the import of administration sets/scalp vein sets, under the heading intravenous cannulae & tubing for long term use. accordingly we have issued assessment order dated 20-11-1990. the importer has moved to the honourable high court of gujarat for the release of goods provisionally on the grounds that such clearances have been permitted at your end. it has been given to understand that such clearances are allowed at your ports on the basis of the clarification given by jcci vide letter dated 26-7-1988 and d.g.h.s. clarification letter 16-1-1987. recently this custom house has received a clarification from d.g.h.s. vide letter dated 9-9-1988 wherein it has been clarified that these administration sets do not qualify for the assessment under notification 208/81. therefore it is evident that the clarification given by the d.g.h.s. earlier has now been suspended by clarification dated 9-9-1988. in view of this, all such goods imported at your port should have also been assessed under notification 65/88 instead of 208/81. it is therefore requested that all the short levies may kindly be recovered by finalising the earlier provisional assessments and henceforth such provisional assessment may not be resorted to as that a uniform practice could be adopted at all the ports. a copy of d.g.h.s. letter dated 9-9-1988 and assessment order dated 20-11-1990 are enclosed herewith for your ready reference.kindly acknowledge the receipt of this letter.yours faithfully,assistant collector of customsappraising group v,custom house, kandla.(4) an order dated 20-11-1990 issued by the assistant collector, kandla in connection with m/s. hemant surgical enterprises, bombay in which he has held that scalp vein sets are not intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use falling under notification 208/81 but are infusion sets for the purpose of administration of medicines or fluids correctly falling under the notification 65/88.(5) an order dated 20-12-1989 passed by a learned single judge of this court in mr. l.h.k. shah v. union of india and ors. in which the court dismissed a writ petition in similar circumstances by holding :matter no. of 1989in the high court at calcuttaconstitutional writ jurisdictionoriginal sidebefore :the hon'ble mr. justicesusanta chatterji20-12-1989mr. lena hans kumar shahvs.union of india and ors.mr. j. ahmed appears for the petitioner.mr. sibdas banerjee appears for the respondents.the court: the writ petitioner has filed a writ application, inter alia, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents and each of them to release the goods, namely intravenous cannulae and tubing long term use infusion sets as covered by item no. 19 of general exemption. upon hearing the learned counsel of both sides and upon perusing the materials on record and perusing the demonstration of the product sought to be imported, this court finds that the goods are of single use and disposable and admittedly being one of the infusion sets covered by notification demanding 40% ad valorem duty, this court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ application. consequently, the petition is rejected. there will be no order as to costs.all parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking.s.k. basu19-1-1990assistant registrarhigh court o.s., calcutta.(6) an order dated 16-5-1990 passed by the appellate bench of this court in an appeal from the order dated 20-12-1989 in l.h.k. shah's case (supra) in which p.d. desai, c.j. disposed of the appeal by observing :'in our opinion, with respect, the trial court ought not to have summarily rejected the writ petition. the expression 'for long-term use' occurring in item 19 required judicial interpretation in light of well-settled rules of construction. besides, the opinions of experts, which have been placed on record and the some of the judicial orders on record also require consideration. the trial court ought to have considered also whether, despite the subsequent notification which levies 40% ad valorem duty on infusion sets, intravenous cannulae and tubing, which are species of infusion sets, still continue to enjoy the exemption under item 19 in view of the fact that the said exemption has not been specifically withdrawn or superseded. the proper course, in a matter of this nature, is to give full hearing to the parties on all the points involved and to decide the matter on merits by a reasoned judgment.for the foregoing reasons, the judgment under appeal is set aside. the case is remanded to the trial court for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law and in light of the observations made in the course of this judgment.in case the appellant is desirous of clearing the consignments of goods in question meanwhile, duty as assessed shall be paid on the consignments, without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the pending writ petition, and subject to the condition that in case the appellant finally succeeds in the writ petition, the duty recovered shall be refunded with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund. the refund of duty accordingly shall be made within four weeks from the date of the final success, if any, of the writ petition.'(7) an extract from a manual of romson's giving illustrations of the intravenous cannulae set and scalp vein sets. the literature next to each illustration reads as follows:'(1) intravenous cannula gs 231 sterile - ready for usesoft pliable plastic cannula is suitable for extended use. fitted with coloured female luer mount for size indication. length: 30 cm.(2) intravenous cannula set gs 265 sterile - ready for usesuitable for extended use.each cannula is provided with appropriate needle. fitted with colour coded female luer mount. length: 30 cm.(3) scalp vein set gs 226 sterile - ready for useshort bevel thin wall needle provides attraumatic insertion and better flow.embossed wings provides better grip.transparent, flexible, siliconised blackline tube for easy handling.flexible colour coded wings allows instant identification of needle gauge.'(8) an extract from the manual of viggo-spectramed showing inter alia the instructions for use of argyle 'medicut' intravenous cannulae which show the parts of the cannula as the sheath, cap, needle with syringe and the cannula. the cannula is described as a 'plastic cannula'.(9) an extract from the british encyclopaedia & medical practice (2nd edition, vol. ii) relating to blood transfusion by f.a. knott m.d., f.r.c.p.d.p.h., director of department of clinical pathology, guy's hospital and reader in pathology university of london. the relevant passage reads as follows : (in which m.r.c. stands for medical research council)'the m.r.c. apparatus works admirably in all cases in which there are good veins, namely these in which a sufficiently large needle can conveniently be inserted and the gravity pressure alone therefore is able to keep up a steady flow of blood.''nevertheless, all these gravity methods have one weekness. the veins may be too small or too collapsed to accommodate a sufficiently wide bore needle. then the veins must either be cut down upon and a cannula tied-in (fig.111) or some form of 'positive pressure' employed to drive the blood through the smaller needle. for patients with poor veins who require prolonged drip transfusions it is probably best always to employ the tied in cannula, the minor surgical techniques for which is described in all standard work. the advantages arising from the avoidance of scars and sepsis however, make it worthwhile to adopt simple needle transfusion whenever possible.'(10) a catalogue of hakko disposable blaster series in which the terminology used is different. on a visual comparison with the manuals of romsons & viggo spectramed the intravenous cannula appears to correspond to the hakko elaster ev (indwelling catheter). the scalp vein set has been separately shown. the instructions for use are in japanese.11. on the basis of the aforesaid documents it is contended by the respondents as follows :(1) all the decisions of cegat relied on by the petitioner were given before the second notification came into effect. therefore, they are not authorities for the proposition that scalp veins sets such as those imported by the petitioner are not classifiable under the second notification.(2) the expert committee of the directorate general of health services had, subsequent to the earlier views relied on by the petitioner, amended their stand by holding that scalp vein sets were not classifiable as 'intravenous cannula for long term use'.(3) the respondents had on the basis of the available material come to a decision that the said goods were covered by the second notification.(4) the petitioner themselves through their clearing agent in the relevant bill of entry had stated that the customs duty was 40%. the respondents had acted on the same and provisionally assessed the customs duty at the rate specified by the petitioners. it is contended that the action of the respondents in claiming duty at 40% ad valorem could not in the circumstances be termed arbitrary.(5) it is contended that the petitioner having themselves accepted the imposition of customs duty at 40% ad valorem could not resile from the position. reliance is placed upon the decision of a learned single judge of this high court in the case of rungta & sons (p) ltd. &anr. v. collector of customs, visakhapatnam and ors. reported in : 1986(23)elt14(cal) in this regard.12. a sample of an intravenous cannula set of viggo was also produced by the respondents.13. keeping in view the observations of the appellate court in the matter of l.h.n. shah's case (supra) the rival contentions are dealt with in detail.14. the cornerstone of the respondent's argument is the second notification. there is no doubt that the decisions of the cegat relied upon by the respondents were all delivered at a time when the second notification was not in force. the second notification in so far as it material imposes customs duty on infusion sets. it is admitted and is also borne out by the authorities cited that intravenous cannulae are also infusion sets. in other words, infusion sets is the genus of which intravenous cannulae is the species. in my view the effect of the second notification on the first notification is not to supersede or to impliedly repeal the same. it is a well-established rule of construction that if in an earlier law provision has been made for an individual case, there is a presumption that the subsequent general law covering the same field does not derogate from the earlier law unless it is wholly inconsistent with it. this principle of construction has been accepted by the supreme court in the case of municipal council palai v. t.j. joseph, reported in : [1964]2scr87 . in that case the supreme court relied upon a passage from sutherland on statutory construction (vol. i) 3rd edn. page 486 which is as follows :-'repeal of special and local statutes by general statutes : the enactment of a general law broad enough in its scope and application to cover the field of operation of a special or local statute will generally not repeal a statute which limits its operation to a particular phase of the subject covered by the general law, or to a particular locality within the jurisdictional scope of the general statute. an implied repeal or prior statutes will be restricted to statutes of the same general nature, since the legislature is presumed to have known of the existence of prior special or particular legislation and to have contemplated only a general treatment of the subject-matter by the general enactment. therefore, where the later general statute does not propose an irreconcilable conflict, the prior special statute will be construed as remaining in effect as a qualification of or exception to the general law.'15. applying the aforesaid principle of construction to this case, i hold that the first notification is an exception to the second notification. in other words import of all infusion sets after 1-3-1989 has become subject to payment of customs duty at 40% ad valorem under the second notification. however, those infusion sets which come within the category of intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use continue to be exempt from payment of any customs duty under the first notification by way of an exception.16. it is admitted by the petitioners that scalp vein sets are infusion sets. the question is whether scalp vein sets come within the definition of intravenous cannulae etc. the word 'cannula' has been defined in the shorter oxford english dictionary 3rd edn. as follows :-'a tubular instrument introduced into a cavity or tumour in order to allow fluid to escape. hence cannular: tubular.'the word 'intravenous' has been defined in the same dictionary as -'existing or taking place within the vein or veins.'reading the two meanings together 'intravenous cannula' must mean a tube which is inserted in the vein. from the illustrations in the various manuals relied upon by the respondents it appears that all intravenous cannulae infusions sets have a small plastic tube round the needle. the sample intravenous cannula set produced by the respondents also showed that apart from the plastic sheet covering the needle, the needle itself was encased in a thin catheter like plastic tube. the method of insertion of this plastic catheter has been shown in the various manuals and indicated by knott in his article on blood transfusion in the british encyclopaedia and medical practice referred to earlier. the cannula is left inside the vein for prolonged transfusion as mentioned by knott. on a common sense view also, it appears that the use of the cannulae for prolonged infusion would obviate the possibility or internal damage by allowing a needle to remain without any protective covering in the vein. from the samples produced as well as in the description of scalp vein sets it appears that there is no catheter-like tube or cannula round the needle. what is inserted and kept in the vein is the needle itself and not any tube. it is also found that the two types of infusion sets are separately itemised in the manuals referred to by the respondents.17. as far as the word 'long term' is concerned in my view the phrase must be construed as 'prolonged'. it may be noted that this aspect has also been considered by the assistant collector, new kandla in the matter of m/s. hemant surgical enterprises, bombay referred to earlier.18. therefore, on a construction of the phrase 'intravenous cannula' i must hold that the scalp vein sets imported by the petitioner do not come within that definition.19. the aforesaid view is fortified by the opinion of the expert committee referred to in the letter dated 9-9-1988 issued from the office of the directorate general of health services, new delhi.20. the earlier opinions relating to the classification of scalp vein sets under the heading 'intravenous cannula' appear to have been given on a loose construction of the phrase particularly because no specific provision had been made for infusion sets at all. the rationale behind the decision to impose customs duty on infusion sets in general appears to be that the same are being manufactured in india.21. in view of the letters relied upon by the respondents exchanged between the assistant collector, kandla with assistant collectors of major ports of the various parts in the country, it appears that the customs are taking a consistent stand now relating to the classification of scalp vein sets under the second notification. it is true that as recently as in august 1990 the customs authorities in new delhi had permitted scalp vein sets to be imported as intravenous cannulae and tubing for long term use. however, it appears from that bill of entry that the customs authorities had acted on the basis of the tribunal's decision in m/s. unival surgical traders case (supra). in that case the decision was delivered on 30th may, 1988, several months before the second notification came into force. the tribunal could not have in the circumstances considered the effect of the second notification as far as scalp vein sets were concerned.22. it has not been shown whether after the letter dated31-12-1990 referred to above, from the assistant collector, kandla to other assistant collectors in the major ports of the country, there have been any instances when the customs authorities have permitted scalp vein sets to be imported under notification no. 208/81. it cannot be presumed that the customs authorities in all the ports in india will not conform to the interpretation of the phrase 'intravenous cannula' as suggested by the assistant collector, kandla in his circular letter dated 31-12-1990. in the circumstances the decision in mitsuny electronic works (supra) would not be applicable.23. i am also of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the principle laid down in caprihans india ltd. (supra) is not applicable. a case cannot be prccedented for a proposition not argued [see goodyear india ltd. v. state of haryana and anr. reported in : [1991]188itr402(sc) ]. the effect of the second notification not having been considered in the decisions of cegat, the decisions could not be binding on the customs authorities as regards that aspect of the case.24. i am also of the view that in the facts of this case the customs authorities cannot be said to have acted in such a manner meriting interference with their decision. the boundaries of judicial review have been laid down in several decisions both of this court and of the supreme court. in a recent decision in the case of shree sitaram sugar company ltd. and anr. v. union of india and ors. (reported in : [1990]1scr909 ) the supreme court has said -'48. the doctrine of judicial review implies that the repository of power acts within the bounds of the power delegated and he does not abuse his power. he must act reasonably and in good faith.49. where it is a finding of fact, the court examines only the reasonableness of the finding. when that finding is found to be rational and reasonably based on evidence, in the sense that all relevant material has been taken into account and no irrelevant material has influenced the decision, and the decision is one which any reasonably minded person, acting on such evidence, would have come to, then judicial review is exhausted even though the finding may not necessarily be what the court would have come to as a trier of fact. whether an order is characterised as legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, or, whether it is a determination of law or lad, the judgment of the expert body, entrusted with power, is generally treated as final and the judicial function is exhausted when it is found to have warrant in the record and a rational basis in law.'25. in the case of collector of customs, madras v. k. canga shelly reported in : [1963]2scr277 the supreme court held -'if there were two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear, and one of them which was in favour of the revenue was adopted, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation favourable to the subject appeals to court as the better one to adopt.'26. in this particular case, there was sufficient material before the customs authorities to come to the conclusion that scalp vein sets were classifiable under the second notification and as such liable to duty at 40% ad valorem. it cannot be said that the materials considered by the customs authorities were irrelevant. furthermore, in this particular case it must be noted that the petitioner itself through its clearing agent has stated the customs duty as being 40%.27. it has also not being shown whether after the second notification came into force, the office of the controller of imports & exports has continued to treat scalp vein sets under the head 'intravenous cannula and tubing for long term use'. in any event and assuming this to be so, this would only be one factor not in itself conclusive for deciding the question whether the scalp vein sets should be treated as coming under the first or the second notification. similarly the mere failure on the part of the respondents to reply to the letters of the petitioners would not by itself lead to a conclusion that the action of the customs authorities in refusing the release of the said goods without payment of duty is bad. in the case of raymond woollen mills (supra) a clarification had been asked for by the writ petitioner from the respondent authorities, whether a licence was needed or no!. the respondent authorities did not reply. it was in that perspective that the learned judge held that it would be inequitable to allow the respondent authorities to institute a criminal case against the writ petitioner for not having a proper licence/written authority. the facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in this case.28. for all these reasons i am unable to grant any relief to the writ petitioners. the writ application is accordingly dismissed. there will be no order as to costs.29. all parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on usual undertaking.