{"id":87704,"date":"1987-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987"},"modified":"2018-02-03T19:44:24","modified_gmt":"2018-02-03T14:14:24","slug":"chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987","title":{"rendered":"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1176, \t\t 1987 SCR (2) 351<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHOWGULE & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT19\/02\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1176\t\t  1987 SCR  (2) 351\n 1987 SCC  (1) 730\t  JT 1987 (1)\t496\n 1987 SCALE  (1)404\n\n\nACT:\n    Customs Act, 1962--Sections 12, 15(c) and  46---'Vessel'\nwhether 'goods'--'Goods for home consumption'--Determination\nof  for purposes of levy of customs duty--'Vessels'  brought\nto  India  for\ttopping up operations  in  Mormugao  harbour\nWhether\t ocean\tgoing vessels-Necessary to present  Bill  of\nEntry.\n'Vessel'--'Goods for home consumption '--Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1985 carry  on\nbusiness of exporting iron ore to various countries.  Previ-\nously  iron ore used to be brought to the harbour from\tvar-\nious  mines by barges and unloaded in the harbour.  Thereaf-\nter,  the iron ore could be loaded on board ocean going\t ore\ncarriers.  Alternately, they could be directly\tunloaded  in\nstream into the ocean going ore carriers. Shallow draught of\nthe harbour prevented large ocean going ore carrying vessels\nfrom entering the harbour or from having iron ore loaded  to\nfull capacity on such vessels within the harbour and consid-\nerable\ttime was wasted in the loading process resulting  in\nsubstantial increase of the transporting cost. The appellant\nCompany,  therefore,  conceived\t the  idea  of\tacquiring  a\n\"Transhipper\"  into which barges could unload iron  are\t and\nfrom  which  large quantities thereof could be\tloaded\tinto\nlarge  vessels\tin open anchorages, a process  described  as\n\"topping  up\". The appellant Company after obtaining  neces-\nsary permission from the Government of India for  purchasing\na  second  hand\t vessel for use as a topping  up  vessel  at\nMormngao  harbour  for iron ore exports, acquired  a  second\nhand tanker, had it converted as a transhipper and  obtained\n' 'A certificate of Condition.\" On the arrival of the vessel\nin  the\t harbour the Deputy Conservator of the\tharbour\t was\ninformed  that\t\"this  is an old  72  Tanker  converted\t and\nequipped  to do the work of topping up of the bulk  carriers\nafter they are loaded at the mechanic plant to the permissi-\nble  draught.\"\tThe appellant Company then  applied  to\t the\nGovernment of India for the issue of \"General Licence\" under\ns.406  of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 stating  that\t the\ngeneral\t licence was sought to ply the vessel  'for  topping\npurposes in stream at Mormugao harbour'. Licence was granted\nby  the Government of India \"(a) for topping up purposes  in\nstream at any Indian port; (b)\n352\nfor  trading on coast; and (c) for a period of 5 years\tfrom\nMarch 5, 1970 to March 4, 1975\". The appellant Company\talso\ninformed the Assistant Collector of Customs about the acqui-\nsition of the vessel 'Maratha Transhipper' for \"the  purpose\nof uptopping large size bulk carrier in stream\" stating that\nthey  would  be operating the ship within the  port  limits,\nthat she would serve as a sea barge, that normally she would\ntake cargo coming by barges with the help of her own  equip-\nment and storing in her own hatches and thereafter she would\ngo  along side bulk carriers and transfer the ore  from\t her\nholds  into  the bulk carriers. Subsequently,  it  was\talso\ninformed  that transhipper was registered as a\t\"home  trade\nvessel\"\t and  it was capable of three  types  of  operations\nnamely, (a) load herseft in stream in river barges; (b)\t up-\ntop another vessel by using the cargo from her own  hatches;\nand (c) up-top another vessel by using the cargo from barges\nwhich go along side Maratha Transhipper. Thus, \"the  Maratha\nTranshipper\"  possessed all the certificates  prescribed  by\nthe Merchant Shipping Act and other Maritime Laws to  enable\nher to ply the oceans.\n    The\t Assistant Collector of Customs asked the  appellant\nCompany\t to  file a Bill of Entry for stores  on  board\t the\nvessel and for dearance of the vessel for home\tconsumption.\nOn  query  being made by the appellant Company as  to  under\nwhat  provisions of the law they were required to  file\t the\nBill of Entry, the Assistant Collector replied stating: \"the\nfunction of the vessel 'S.S. Maratha Transhipper' is in\t the\nnature of sea barge operating within the .port limits.\tSuch\noperations  are\t reserved to the yessics imported  for\thome\nconsumption.\"  The Assistant Collector of Customs  issued  a\nmice to the appellant Company to show cause why the Bill  of\nEntry was not filed. After the reply to the notice was\tsent\nand  a\tpersonal  hearing was granted to  the  Company,\t the\nAssistant  Collector made an order requiring the company  to\nfile  a Bill of Entry for home consumption. This  order\t was\nconfirmed  by  the Appellate Collector. The  orders  of\t the\nAssistant  Collector and the Appellate Collector were  ques-\ntioned in a writ petition. A Single Judge allowed the  peti-\ntion  but on appeal a Division Bench set aside the order  of\nthe  Single Judge and dismissed the petition holding that  a\nvessel was 'goods' within the meaning of s.46 of the Customs\nAct.\n    The\t vessel in C.A. No. 4427 of 1985 was an ocean  going\nmerchant  vessel  engaged in foreign and  coastal  trade  in\nIndia and various foreign countries. The appellant  acquired\nthe vessel from the previous owner and obtained the  permis-\nsion  of the Government to have it converted as a  Tranship-\nper. After the vessel arrived at Mormugao Port, the  Customs\nAuthorities  demanded that a Bill of Entry should be  filed.\nThereafter the\n353\nsame story followed as in the other case.\n    In\tthe appeal to this Court on behalf of the  appellant\nit  was\t contended: (1) that the scheme of the\tCustoms\t Act\nshow  that  a vessel was not 'goods' within the\t meaning  of\ns.46(1)\t of the Act and therefore, it was not  necessary  to\nfile  a Bill of Entry; (2) that it was also the case of\t the\nGovernment  of\tIndia  that an ocean going  vessel  was\t not\nrequired  to  file a Bill of Entry and that the\t vessels  in\nquestion were ocean going vessels notwithstanding that their\nmain  purpose  was topping up bulk carriers;  (3)  that\t the\nDivision Bench was wrong in refusing to go into the question\nwhether\t or  not the vessels were ocean going  vessels\twhen\nthat was the very basis of the orders of the Customs Author-\nities  as well as the judgment of the Single Judge, and\t (4)\nthat notwithstanding the definition, the scheme of  Chapters\nVI  and VII of the Customs Act and the context in which\t the\nexpression  'goods' is used in s.46 of the Act\trequire\t the\nexpression  to be interpreted for the purpose of s.46(1)  as\nexcluding the vessel, aircrafts or vehicles.\n    On behalf of the respondent Union, it was contended that\nthe definition of the word 'goods' in the Customs Act  unam-\nbiguously  included a vessel, and that in any case the\tves-\nsels  in question in both the cases were  Transhippers\tused\nfor  topping up operations in Indian territorial waters\t and\ncould not claim to be classified as ocean going vessels.\nDismissing the appeals,\n    HELD: 1. Section 46(1) of the Customs Act, 1962  require\nthe importer of goods for home consumption or warehousing to\npresent\t to the appropriate officer a Bill of Entry  in\t the\nprescribed  manner. The question is whether the\t vessels  in\nthe  instant  cases are goods brought into  India  for\thome\nconsumption  and  whether a transhipper is  an\tocean  going\nvessel?\t By  definition\t a vessel, aircraft  or\t vehicle  is\nincluded among goods vide s.2(22). [364E-G]\n    2. If a vessel, aircraft and vehicle are required to  be\nexcluded  from\tthe  meaning of the  expression\t 'goods'  in\ns.46(1),  then\twhat other purpose was to be served  by\t the\ninclusive  definition  of  the\texpression  which  expressly\nbrought\t within its shadow 'vessel, aircraft  and  vehicle'.\nThere  is no provision in the Act into which  the  inclusive\ndefinition could be read. The Court cannot attribute  redun-\ndance  to  the\tlegislature particularly in the\t case  of  a\ndefinition  in a taxing statute. The Court must\t proceed  on\nthe  basis  that such a definition is  designed\t to  achieve\nresults. [364H; 365A-B]\n354\n    3.\tUnder s.12 of the Customs Act what are dutiable\t are\ngoods imported into or exported from India and if goods\t are\ndefined to include vessels, aircrafts and vehicles, it\tmust\nbe taken that the object of the inclusive definition was  to\nbring  within  the net of taxation  vessels,  aircrafts\t and\nvehicles  which are imported into India. Section 46(1) is  a\nprelude\t to the levy of duty or a rust step in\tthat  direc-\ntion.  It  must, therefore, follow us a\t necessary  sequitur\nthat  vessels,\taircrafts and vehicles are 'goods'  for\t the\npurpose\t of  s.46(1). Any other interpretation may  lead  to\nmost anomalous results. [365B-C]\n    4.\tUnder  s.15 of the Act the rate of duty\t and  tariff\nvaluation in the case of goods entered for home\t consumption\nunder s.46 shall be as on the date when the Bill of Entry is\npresented,  in\tthe case of goods cleared from\ta  warehouse\nunder  s.68 as on the date on which the goods  are  actually\nremoved\t from  the warehouse and in the case  of  any  other\ngoods as on the date of payment of duty. [365D-E]\n    5.\tGoods which are entered for home  consumption  under\ns.46  and  goods which are warehoused  are  naturally  goods\nwhich  are openly imported into India  without\tconcealment.\nThe  expression 'other goods' mentioned in s.15(c) is  obvi-\nously  meant  to cover other imported goods  such  us  goods\nimported  clandestinely and goods which have  otherwise\t es-\ncaped duty. [365E]\n    6.\tIt  may be that in s.46(2) and\telsewhere  the\tword\n'goods'\t is  used  in such a way as not to  include  and  as\ncontradistinguished from the conveyances in which the  goods\nare  carried, depending upon the context. But that does\t not\nmean  that despite the definition, the word is never  to  be\nunderstood  as defined and that it should always  be  inter-\npreted\tas never to include vessels, aircrafts and  vehicles\neven  when there is nothing in the context  justifying\tfrom\nexclusion. Therefore, there is no justification for  holding\nthat  a vessel is not 'goods' for the purposes\tof  s.46(1).\n[366B-D]\n    7.\tIn both the instant cases, undoubtedly\tthe  vessels\nare  not  only capable of being used but are used  as  cargo\nships  to  carry cargo from one Indian port  to\t another  or\nsometimes  to  foreign ports, necessarily going out  on\t the\nhigh  seas. They are structurally and technically  competent\nto go on the high seas and they have been certified to be so\ncompetent by appropriate maritime authorities. When  because\nof inclement monsoon weather topping up operations cannot be\ndone the vessels do go out into the open sea sometimes\tfrom\none  Indian  port to another and at other times\t to  foreign\nports. Even in the come of topping up operations during\t the\nfair season, the transhippers go into the open sea to  reach\nthe bulk\n355\ncarriers.  But\tthese operations do not make  these  vessels\nocean going vessels when their primary purpose is to conduct\ntopping up operations in Indian territorial waters. [366F-H;\n367A-B]\n    8. It is clear from the material placed before the Court\nthat both the vessels, were originally ocean going  vessels,\nthat they were converted as transhippers for the purpose  of\ntopping\t up iron ore at Mormugao harbour and that they\ttra-\nversed\tthe  open sea to reach Mormugao. At  the  time\tthey\nentered the territorial waters at Mormugao it was distinctly\nunderstood and intended that the vessels were to be primari-\nly  used  for topping up operations at\tMormugao.  If  ocean\njourneys  were to be undertaken either they were  incidental\nto the primary purpose of topping up bulk carriers at Mormu-\ngao  or\t they were occasionally undertaken when\t topping  up\noperations  were not possible during the  inclement  monsoon\nseason. [367D-F]\n    9. For the purpose of levy of Customs Duty, in order  to\ndetermine  whether  any imported goods are 'goods  for\thome\nconsumption' it has to he found out what the primary intend-\ned use of the goods was when the goods are brought to Indian\nterritorial waters. If the goods are intended to be primari-\nly  used  in  India they are \"goods  for  home\tconsumption\"\nnotwithstanding\t that they may also be used for the same  or\nother  purposes\t outside India. The vessels,  in  these\t two\ncases  were brought to India to be used primarily  as  tran-\nshippers at Mormugao, though used incidentally or  occasion-\nally  to go into the open sea. They are,  therefore,  \"goods\nfor  home consumption\" and not ocean going vessels  for\t the\npurpose of Customs Act. After their conversion they were  no\nlonger\tocean going vessels, in the full sense of  the\tterm\nthat is in the sense that their predominant purpose was\t use\nas ships traversing open seas. It was, therefore,  necessary\nto  present Bills of Entry in respect of both  the  vessels.\n[367G-H; 368A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 179
\nof 1985.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 13.12. 1984  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in Appeal No. 273 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
WITH
\nCivil Appeal No. 4427 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1985 of the Bombay
\n356<\/span>
\nHigh  Court in Special Civil Appln. (Writ Petition) No.\t 186
\nof 1982.\n<\/p>\n
    A.\tSetalvad, P.H. Parekh, M. Korde and Manohar for\t the
\nAppellants in C.A. No. 179 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n
    Soli J. Sorabjee, A. Vachher, S.K. Mehta, Bomi M. Usgao-
\ncar,  M.K. Dua and Uday U. Lalit for the Appellants in\tC.A.
\nNo. 4427 of 1985.\n<\/p>\n
    M.S.  Rao, A.S. Rao, C.V. Subba Rao and P.\tParmeshwaran
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    CHINNAPPA  REDDY, J. The principal questions  raised  in
\nthe two appeals are the same and we are, therefore,  dispos-
\ning  of\t both the appeals by a common judgment.\t There\tare,
\nhowever, some points of difference which we shall mention in
\nthe course of the narration of facts.\n<\/p>\n
    In Civil Appeal No. 179 of 1985, Chowgule & Co.  Private
\nLimited\t are the appellants. They carry on the\tbusiness  of
\nexporting  iron\t ore  to various countries  from  India.  It
\nappears\t that previously iron ore used to be brought to\t the
\nMormugao harbour from various mines in the territory of\t Goa
\nby  barges and unloaded in the harbour. Thereafter, the\t ore
\nwould  be loaded on board ocean going ore  carriers.  Alter-
\nnately,\t they would be directly unloaded in stream into\t the
\nocean going ore carriers. On account of the shallow  draught
\nof  the Mormugao harbour which prevented large\tocean  going
\nore  carrying  vessels\tfrom entering the  harbour  or\tfrom
\nhaving\tiron  ore loaded to full capacity  on  such  vessels
\nwithin\tthe  harbour, considerable time was  wasted  in\t the
\nloading\t process  resulting in substantial increase  of\t the
\ncost  of transporting iron ore from Mormugao. Therefore,  in
\nabout  1967,  the appellant company conceived  the  idea  of
\nacquiring  a  ‘transhipper’ into which barges  could  unload
\niron  ore and from which large quantities of iron ore  could
\nbe  loaded  into large vessels in open\tanchorages.  Such  a
\ntranshipper  would have to be specially fitted with  special
\nand adequate equipment to carry out those tasks. The  opera-
\ntion  of  loading a vessel in open anchorage by the  use  of
\ntranshippers is described as ‘topping up’. On July 26, 1967,
\nthe  appellant Company applied to the Government  of  India,
\nMinistry of Transport and Shipping, for necessary permission
\nfor “purchasing a second hand vessel of about 15000 DWT\t for
\nuse as a topping up vessel at Mormugao harbour for iron\t ore
\nexports.”  By their letter dated January 16, 1968, the\tGov-
\nernment of India granted their permission subject to certain
\ncon-\n<\/p>\n
357<\/span><\/p>\n
ditions\t regarding  foreign  exchange  etc.  Thereafter\t the
\nappellant company acquired a second hand tanker called\t“The
\nTropical  Grace” and had it converted at the Yokohoma  Ship-
\nyard in Japan as a transhipper. “A certificate of Condition”
\nin respect of the vessel was given by BUREAU VERITAS.  Among
\nthe main characteristics of the vessel, it was mentioned  in
\nthe  certificate,  “The Vessel originally a T 2\t Tanker\t was
\nconverted  into an ore loading barge at Yokohoma by  Nippon,
\nKK,  Asano Dockyard from April to September 1969  under\t the
\nsupervision  of\t our society.” It was further  certified  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  vessel will be entered into\t the  Marine
\n\t      Register\tBook  of  BUREAU  VERITAS  with\t the
\n\t      following\t class and notation mark: 13  3\t Ore
\n\t      Carrier,\tSmall Coasting Trade  starting\tfrom
\n\t      September\t 1969, for a period of\tfour  years.
\n\t      The  vessel will be mainly employed as an\t ore
\n\t      loading  barge in the Harbour of Goa  (India),
\n\t      with  the possibility to extend her  exploita-
\n\t      tion  in\tcertain periods of year, as  a\tbulk
\n\t      carrier for small coasting trade.
\n\t\t\tAs a result of the aforesaid surveys
\n\t      for   conversion\tand  reclassification,\t the
\n\t      undersigned believes that S\/S “TROPICAL GRACE”
\n\t      is at present time in a position to  undertake
\n\t      the  self-propelled  voyage from\tYOKOHOMA  to
\n\t      GOA.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  vessel arrived in the harbour of Mormugao on  or  about
\nOctober 15, 1969. The Deputy Conservator, Mormugao Goa\tPort
\nTrust,\tMormugao harbour was informed on the same day  about
\nthe  arrival of the vessel and it was stated in the  letter,
\n“this  is an old 72 Tanker converted and equipped to do\t the
\nwork  of  topping up of the bulk carriers,  after  they\t are
\nloaded at the mechanic plant to the permissible draught.” On
\nOctober\t 20,  1969, the petitioner company  applied  to\t the
\nGovernment of India for the issue of ‘General Licence’ under
\ns.406 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. It was stated that
\nthe  general licence was sought to ply the vessel ‘for\ttop-
\nping purpose in stream at Mormugao harbour’. The name of the
\nship was also changed to ‘Maratha Transhipper’. Licence\t was
\ngranted by the Government of India for use of the vessel for
\n“topping  up purposes in stream at Mormugao, Kandla,  Bombay
\nand Madras for a period of five years”. It appears that this
\nlicence\t was  later amended and the purposes for  which\t the
\nlicence\t was  granted  was treated as “(a)  for\t topping  up
\npurposes  in stream at any Indian Port; (b) for\t trading  on
\ncoast; and (c) for a period of five years from March 5, 1970
\nto March 4, 1975.” On
\n358<\/span>
\nNovember  29,  1969,  the petitioner  company  informed\t the
\nAssistant  Collector  of  Customs,  Custom  House,  Mormugao
\nharbour\t about the acquisition of the vessel  Maratha  Tran-
\nshipper\t (earlier  Tropical Grace) for “the purpose  of\t up-
\ntopping\t large size bulk carrier in stream”. It\t was  stated
\nthat they would be operating the ship within the port limits
\nand that she would serve as a sea barge. It was also  stated
\nthat normally she would take cargo coming by barges with the
\nhelp of her own equipment and storing in her own hatches  to
\nthe  extent  of\t 15000 tonnes and thereafter  she  would  go
\nalongside bulk carriers and transfer the ore from her  holds
\ninto the bulk carriers. This letter was followed by  another
\nletter\tdated November 29, 1969 in which-it was stated\tthat
\nS.S.  Maratha  Transhipper was registered as a\t“home  trade
\nvessel”\t and  that it was capable of three types  of  opera-
\ntions:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) load herself in stream in river barges\n<\/p>\n
      (b) up top another vessel by using the cargo from\t her
\nown  hatches; (c) up-top another vessel by using  the  cargo
\nfrom barges which go alongside Maratha Transhipper.
\nWe may also add here that ‘The Maratha Transhipper’ possess-
\nes all the certificates prescribed by the Merchant  Shipping
\nAct and other Maritime Laws to enable her to ply the oceans.
\n    On\tDecember 31, 1969, the Assistant Collector  of\tCus-
\ntoms, Mormugao asked the appellant company to file a Bill of
\nEntry for stores on board the vessel, ‘Maratha Transhipper’.
\nThis was followed on February 6, 1970 by another letter from
\nthe Assistant Collector asking the appellant company to file
\na  Bill of Entry for clearance of the vessel ‘Maratha  Tran-
\nshipper’  for  home consumption immediately.  The  appellant
\ncompany\t by their letter dated February 19,  1970  requested
\nthe Assistant Collector to enlighten them as to the relevant
\nprovisions of the law under which they were required to fill
\nin  the\t Bill of Entry in respect of the vessel\t which\tthey
\nsaid  the  Customs Department was aware was an\tocean  going
\nvessel. The Assistant Collector replieding, “The function of
\nthe vessel s.s. ‘Maratha Transhipper’ is in the nature of  a
\nsea barge operating within the port limits. Such  operations
\nare reserved to the vessels imported for home  consumption.”
\nThe company was requested to file the Bill of Entry for home
\nconsumption  immediately. Thereafter there was\tsome  corre-
\nspondence between the company and the Customs. On April\t 23,
\n1970, the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a notice  to
\nthe appellant company asking them to show cause why the Bill
\nof Entry was not filed in respect of the vessel
\n359<\/span>
\nS.S. ‘Maratha Transhipper’ which was imported by the company
\non October 15, 1969 for the purpose of carrying out  topping
\noperations within the port limits. The company sent a  reply
\nto  the notice. A personal hearing was also granted  to\t the
\ncompany. Thereafter on May 22, 1970, the Assistant Collector
\nmade an order requiring the company to file a Bill of  Entry
\nfor  home consumption in respect of the vessel ‘The  Maratha
\nTranshipper’.  The  order  of the  Assistant  Collector\t was
\nconfirmed  by the Appellate Collector on July 23, 1970.\t The
\nOrders of the Assistant Collector and the Appellate  Collec-
\ntor  were  questioned in a writ petition filed in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Bombay. A learned single judge of the\t High  Court
\nallowed the writ petition but on an appeal under the  Latter
\nPatent\ta  Division Bench of the High Court holding  that  a
\nvessel\twas goods within the meaning of s.46 of the  Customs
\nAct, allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition. The
\ncompany\t having obtained special leave of this\tcourt  under
\nArt. 136 of the Constitution, the appeal is now before us.
\n    The facts in Civil Appeal No. 4427 of 1985 are some what
\ndifferent. The vessel in question in this appeal, “Priyamva-
\nda” was originally called  ‘Jagatswamini’. Jagatswamini\t was
\nan ocean going merchant vessel engaged in foreign and coast-
\nal trade in India, the United Kingdom, the continent, Japan,
\nNorth America, South America and Australia. V.S. Dempo & Co.
\nPrivate\t Limited, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4427  of
\n1985 acquired the vessel from its previous owner M\/s.  Dempo
\nStreamship  Limited.  The  appellant  company  obtained\t the
\npermission  of\tthe  Government to have it  converted  as  a
\ntranshipper. The conversion was effected by M\/s. A.G.  Weser
\nat  a West German Shipyard. The ship was fitted\t with  added
\nholds  on  both sides, cranes, conveyors  and  ship  loading
\nequipments designed for transfer operations. The vessel\t was
\nsurveyed by Germanischer Lloyd and German Maritime. Interna-
\ntional tonnage certificate, Suez Canal Tonnage\tcertificate,
\ncargo ship safety certificate, cargo ship safety.  equipment
\ncertificate, international load lines certificate and  clas-
\nsification  certificate were all issued. The vessel  arrived
\nat Mormugao Port on September 26, 1982. The Customs Authori-
\nties demanded that a Bill of Entry should be filed. Thereaf-
\nter the.same story followed as in the other case.
\n    The main submissions of Shri Atul Setalvad, the  learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 179 of  1985,
\nwhose  arguments  were supplemented by Shri  Soli  Sorabjee,
\nlearned\t counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.\t4427
\nof 1985, were that the scheme of the Customs Act show that a
\nvessel was not ‘goods’ within the meaning of
\n360<\/span>
\ns.46(1) of the Customs Act and therefore, it was not  neces-
\nsary  to file a Bill of Entry, that it was also the case  of
\nthe  Government of India that an ocean going vessel was\t not
\nrequired  to  file a Bill of Entry and that  the  vessel  in
\nquestion was an ocean going vessel notwithstanding that\t its
\nmain  purpose was topping up bulk carriers of Iron  ore.  It
\nwas submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court\t was
\nwrong in refusing to go into the question whether or not the
\nvessel\twas  an ocean going vessel when that  was  the\tvery
\nbasis  of the orders of the Customs Authorities as  well  as
\nthe judgment of the learned single judge. On the other hand,
\nit  was submitted by Shri S.Madhusudan Rao, learned  counsel
\nfor  the  Union\t of India that the definition  of  the\tword
\n‘goods’ in the Customs Act unambiguously included a  vessel,
\nleaving no scope for any argument and that, in any case\t the
\nvessels\t in  question  in both the  cases  were\t principally
\ntranshippers used for topping up operations in Indian terri-
\ntorial waters and could not claim to be classified as  ocean
\ngoing vessels.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmay  now  refer to the relevant\t provisions  of\t the
\nCustoms\t Act. Section 2(22) of the Customs Act defines\tthat
\nunless\t  the\t context   otherwise\trequires,    “goods”
\nincludes–“(a) vessels, air-crafts and vehicles; (b) stores;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  baggage; (d) currency and negotiable  instruments;\t and\n<\/p>\n
(e) any other kind of movable property”. “Import” is defined
\nas meaning “bringing into India from a place outside India”.
\n“India”\t is defined as including “the territorial waters  of
\nIndia”.\t “Imported  goods” are defined to  mean\t “any  goods
\nbrought\t into India from a place outside India but  not\t in-
\ncluding goods which have been cleared for home consumption”.
\n“Importer” is defined, “in relation to any goods at any time
\nbetween their importation and the time when they are cleared
\nfor home consumption” as “including the owner or any  person
\nholding\t himself  out to be the importer”.  “Conveyance”  is
\ndefined\t to include” a vessel, an aircraft and\ta  vehicle”.
\n“Bill of Entry” is defined to mean a “Bill of Entry referred
\nto in s.46″‘. A “Bill of Export” is defined to mean a  “Bill
\nof  Export  referred  to in s.50.” An  “Import\tManifest  or
\nImport\tReport” is defined to mean “the manifest  or  report
\nrequired  to be delivered under s.30”. “Stores” are  defined
\nto mean “goods for use in a vessel or aircraft and  includes
\nfuel and spare parts and other articles of equipment whether
\nor not for immediate fitting.”\n<\/p>\n
    Section 12 provides for the levy of duties of Customs on
\ngoods  imported or exported from India. Section 15  provides
\nthat  the  rates of duty and tariff valuation shall  be\t the
\nrate and valuation in force,–\n<\/p>\n
361<\/span><\/p>\n
“(a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption under
\nsection 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in  respect
\nof such goods is presented under that section;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b) in the case of goods cleared from a  ware-
\n\t      house  under section 68, on the date on  which
\n\t      the goods are actually removed from the  ware-
\n\t      house;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)  in  the case of any other goods,  on\t the
\n\t      date of payment of duty.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Chapter VI of the Customs Act is concerned with  “provi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sions  relating to conveyances carrying imported  or  export
\ngoods”, Chapter VII deals with “clearance of imported  goods
\nand export goods”, Chapter VIII deals with “goods in  trans-
\nit” and Chapter IX deals with “ware-housing”. Section 29  to
\n43 occur in Chapter VI and sections 44 to 51 occur in  Chap-
\nter VII. Sections 45 to 49 are dealt with under the  heading
\n‘clearance of imported goods’ while sections 50 to 51  occur
\nunder the heading of ‘clearance of export goods’. Section 29
\nrequires  the  person-in-charge of a vessel or\tan  aircraft
\nentering India from any place outside India not to cause  or
\npermit\tthe vessel or aircraft to call or land (a)  for\t the
\nfirst time after arrival in India; or (b) at any time  while
\ncarrying  passengers  or  cargo brought in  that  vessel  or
\naircraft,  at any place other that a customs port or a\tcus-
\ntoms airport, as the case may be. Section 30 imposes a\tduty
\non  a person-in-charge of the conveyance  carrying  imported
\ngoods  to deliver to the proper officer, within twenty\tfour
\nhours  after  arrival, an import manifest in the case  of  a
\nvessel\tor  aircraft or an import report, in the case  of  a
\nvehicle,  in the prescribed form. Section 31  prohibits\t the
\nmaster\tof  a vessel from permitting the  unloading  of\t any
\nimported  goods until an order has been given by the  proper
\nofficer\t granting ‘entry inwards’ to such vessel. An  ‘entry
\ninwards’  order is not to be given until an import  manifest
\nhas been delivered or unless the proper officer is satisfied
\nthat  there  was  sufficient cause for\tnot  delivering\t it.
\nSection 39 prohibits the master of a vessel from  permitting
\nthe  loading of any export goods other than the baggage\t and
\nmail  bags,  until  an order has been given  by\t the  proper
\nofficer granting ‘entry-outwards’ to such vessel. Section 41
\nprescribes  that an export manifest in the case of a  vessel
\nor an aircraft and an export report in the case of a vehicle
\nshould\tbe  filed by the person-in-charge  of  a  conveyance
\nbefore\tthe departure of the conveyance from a customs\tsta-
\ntion.  Section\t42 prohibits the departure of  a  conveyance
\nwhich  has  brought  any imported goods or  has\t loaded\t any
\nexport\tgoods to depart from that customs station without  a
\nwritten
\n362<\/span>
\norder  of the proper officer. Section 41 provides  that\t the
\nprovisions  of sections 30, 40 and 42 shall not apply  to  a
\nvehicle which carries no goods other than the luggage of its
\noccupants. Chapter VII, as we said, deals with clearance  of
\nimported goods and export goods. We are primarily  concerned
\nwith s.46 and we consider it necessary to extract the  whole
\nof the section. It is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “46(1). The importer of any goods, other\tthan
\n\t      goods  intended for transit  or  transhipment,
\n\t      shall make entry thereof by presenting to\t the
\n\t      proper  officer a bill of entry for home\tcon-
\n\t      sumption\tor  warehousing\t in  the  prescribed
\n\t      form:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided\t that if the importer  makes
\n\t      and  subscribes  to a declaration\t before\t the
\n\t      proper  officer,\tto  the effect\tthat  he  is
\n\t      unable for want of full information to furnish
\n\t      all  the\tparticulars of\tthe  goods  required
\n\t      under  this  sub-section, the  proper  officer
\n\t      may,  pending the production of such  informa-
\n\t      tion, permit him, previous to the entry there-
\n\t      of (a) to examine the goods in the presence of
\n\t      an  officer of customs, or (b) to deposit\t the
\n\t      goods  in a public warehouse  appointed  under
\n\t      s.57 without warehousing the same.
\n\t\t       (2)  Save as otherwise  permitted  by
\n\t      the  proper  officers, a bill of\tentry  shall
\n\t      include all the goods mentioned in the bill of
\n\t      lading  or other receipt given by the  carrier
\n\t      to the consignor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (3)  A bill of entry  under  sub-sec-
\n\t      tion(1) may be presented at any time after the
\n\t      delivery\tof  the import\tmanifest  or  import
\n\t      report as the case may be:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided\t that the Collector of\tCus-
\n\t      toms may in any special circumstances permit a
\n\t      bill  of\tentry  to be  presented\t before\t the
\n\t      delivery of such report:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided further that a bill of entry
\n\t      may  be presented even before the delivery  of
\n\t      such manifest if the vessel by which the goods
\n\t      have  been shipped for importation into  India
\n\t      is  expected to arrive within a week from\t the
\n\t      date of such presentation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (4)  The importer while presenting  a
\n\t      bill  of entry shall at the foot thereof\tmake
\n\t      and subscribe to a declaration as to
\n\t      363<\/span>
\n\t      the  truth  of the contents of  such  bill  of
\n\t      entry  and shall, in support of such  declara-
\n\t      tion,  produce to the proper officer  the\t in-
\n\t      voice, if any, relating to the imported goods.
\n\t\t       (5)  If the proper officer is  satis-
\n\t      fied  that  the interests of revenue  are\t not
\n\t      prejudicially  affected and that there was  no
\n\t      fradulent\t intention, he may permit  substitu-
\n\t      tion  of a bill of entry for home\t consumption
\n\t      for  a bill of entry for warehousing or  vice-
\n\t      versa.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 47 deals with clearance of goods for home  consump-
\ntion and section 49 with storage of imported goods in  ware-
\nhouses\tpending clearance. Section 50 requires the  exporter
\nof  any goods to make an entry thereof by presenting to\t the
\nproper\toffice, a Shipping bill in the case of goods  to  be
\nexported in a vessel or aircraft and a bill of export in the
\ncase of goods to be exported by land.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  53 makes provision for permitting goods  to  be
\ntransmitted  without payment of duty if they are  ‘mentioned
\nin the import manifest as for transmit in the same vessel or
\naircraft.’  Section 54 provides and prescribe the  procedure
\nfor  transhipment of goods without payment of duty.  Chapter
\nIX  deals with ‘Warehousing’. Section 57 provides for  ware-
\nhousing\t of dutiable goods without payment of duty.  Section
\n68  provides  for  clearance of warehoused  goods  for\thome
\nconsumption  on\t payment of duty. Section  69  provides\t for
\nclearance  of warehoused goods for exportation without\tpay-
\nment of import duty if certain conditions are fulfilled.
\n    The\t only  other  important provision  requiring  to  be
\nnoticed by us is Item No. 76(1) of the First Schedule to the
\nIndian Tariff Act which provides for the levy of 40 per cent
\nad valorem standard rate of duty on “ships and other vessels
\nfor  inland  and  harbour  navigation,\tincluding  steamers,
\nlaunches, boats and barges imported entire or in  sections.”
\nAlong  with this entry has to be read the exemption  granted
\nby G.S.R. No. 930 which is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In exercise of the powers conferred by sec.23
\n\t      of  the Sea Customs Act, 1878, as in force  in
\n\t      India  and as applied to the State  of  Pondi-
\n\t      cherry, the Central Government hereby  exempts
\n\t      ocean going vessles imported into India or the
\n\t      State  of Pondichery, other than\tvessels\t im-
\n\t      ported to be broken up from, the whole of\t the
\n\t      duty  of\tcustoms leviable  thereon,  provided
\n\t      that any such vessel if subsequently bro-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      364<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ken up shall be chargeable with the duty which
\n\t      would  be payable on her if she were  imported
\n\t      to be broken up.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In regard to the levy of customs duty the scheme of\t the
\nAct appears to be as follows:- Goods which are imported into
\nIndia,\tthat is, goods which are brought into India  from  a
\nplace  outside\tIndia,\tare, on entry  into  India,  broadly
\nclassified into (i) goods entered for home consumption under
\nsec.46(1)(ii)  goods  entered for  ware-housing\t also  under
\nsec.46(1)(ii);\t(iii) goods in transit, and (iv)  goods\t for
\ntranshipment. In the case of goods in transit and goods\t for
\ntranshipment  duty  is not required to be  paid\t subject  to
\nfulfilling  the conditions prescribed by secs.53 54, 55\t and\n<\/p>\n
56. In the case of these goods there is no need to present a
\nBill  of  Entry. Bill of Entry is necessary and\t has  to  be
\npresented  in  the  case of goods for  home  consumption  or
\nwarehousing: Goods entered for home consumption are required
\nto  be cleared on payment of duty. Warehoused goods  may  be
\ncleared\t either for home consumption or exportation on\tpay-
\nment of import duty or export duty as the case may be. Goods
\nentered for home consumption are to be subjected to duty  at
\na  rate and tariff valuation as on the date of\tpresentation
\nof  a  Bill of Entry under sec.46 and goods cleared  from  a
\nwarehouse  are to be subjected to duty at a rate and  tariff
\nvaluation  as on the date of actual removal from  the  ware-
\nhouse.\tOther  goods,  presumably goods\t not  disclosed\t but
\ndiscovered  to be imported or which have  otherwise  escaped
\nduty,  are  to\tbe subjected to duty at a  rate\t and  tariff
\nvaluation as on the date of payment of duty.\n<\/p>\n
    Sec.46(1)  which we have extracted earlier requires\t the
\nimporter of any goods for home consumption or warehousing to
\npresent\t to the proper officer a bill of entry in  the\tpre-
\nscribed form. The question, which arises for  consideration,
\ntherefore, is whether the vessels in the two cases before us
\nare goods brought into India for home consumption? Mixed  up
\nwith this question is the question whether a transhipper  is
\nan  ocean going vessel? We will first consider the  question
\nwhether a vessel is goods so as to attract sec.46(1) of\t the
\nCustoms Act. By definition a vessel, aircraft or vehicle  is
\nincluded among goods, vide sec.2(22). But, according to Shri
\nSetalvad,  notwithstanding  the definition,  the  scheme  of
\nChapters  VI and VII of the Customs Act and the\t context  in
\nwhich  the expression ‘goods’ is used in sec.46 of  the\t Act
\nrequire the expression to be interpreted for the purpose  of
\nsec.46(1)  as  excluding a vessel, aircraft or\tvehicle.  In
\nanswer\tto a direct question by us, Shri Setalvad  confessed
\nthat  if a vessel, aircraft and vehicle are required  to  be
\nexcluded  from\tthe  meaning of the  expression\t ‘goods’  in
\nsec.46(1)  of the Act, he was unable to suggest\t what  other
\npurpose was
\n365<\/span>
\nto  be served by the inclusive definition of the  expression
\nwhich expressly brought within its shadow ‘vessel,  aircraft
\nand vehicle’. He frankly stated that he was unable to  point
\nout any provision in the Act into which the inclusive  defi-
\nnition could be read. We cannot attribute redundance to\t the
\nlegislature  particularly in the case of a definition  in  a
\ntaxing\tstatute.  We must proceed on the basis that  such  a
\ndefinition is designed to achieve a result. Under sec. 12 of
\nthe Customs Act what are dutiable are goods imported into or
\nexported  from\tIndia and if goods are\tdefined\t to  include
\nvessels,  aircrafts and vehicles, we must take it  that\t the
\nobject\tof the inclusive definition was to bring within\t the
\nnet  of taxation vessels, aircrafts and vehicles  which\t are
\nimported  into\tIndia. It is’ undisputed and  indeed  it  is
\nindisputable that sec.46(1) is a prelude to the levy of duty
\nor  a  first  step in that direction.  It  must,  therefore,
\nfollow\tas a necessary sequitur that vessels, aircrafts\t and
\nvehicles  are goods for the purpose of sec.46(1). Any  other
\ninterpretation\tmay  lead to most anomalous  results.  Under
\nsec.  15  of the Customs Act, the rate of  duty\t and  tariff
\nvaluation in the case of goods entered for home\t consumption
\nunder sec.46 shall be as on the date when the bill of  entry
\nis presented, in the case of goods cleared from a  warehouse
\nunder sec.68 as on the date on which the goods are  actually
\nremoved\t from  the warehouse and in the case  of  any  other
\ngoods  as  on the date of payment of duty. Goods  which\t are
\nentered\t for home consumption under sec.46 and\tgoods  which
\nare warehoused are naturally goods which are openly imported
\ninto India without concealment. The expression ‘other goods’
\nmentioned  in sec. 15(c) is obviously meant to\tcover  other
\nimported  goods\t such as goods\timported  clandestinely\t and
\ngoods which have otherwise escaped duty.\n<\/p>\n
    Now, if a motorcar is brought by road into India from  a
\nplace outside India for the purpose of being used in  India,
\nwhat  is  to be done with it and what is the point  of\ttime
\nwith reference to which it is to be subjected to the levy of
\ncustoms\t duty?\tSurely, it is not meant to be  subjected  to
\nduty  as on the date of payment of duty as provided by\tsec.
\n15(1)(c), ranking with goods not disclosed but discovered to
\nbe imported. It would be unreasonable to subject the car  to
\nthe  levy of duty as on the date of payment of duty  instead
\nof  on the date prescribed by sec.15(1)(a) of the Act,\tthat
\nis,  the  date on which a bill of entry is  presented  under
\nsec.46\tas in the case of all other goods entered  for\thome
\nconsumption. Shri Setalvad’s submission was based on what he
\ndescribed  as the scheme of Chapters VI and VII of the\tAct.
\nThe circumstance that in the several provisions contained in
\nChapter\t VI, the reference to ‘goods’ is to goods which\t are
\ncarried and not the carriers themselves, is not very materi-
\nal since the chapter itself deals
\n366<\/span>
\nwith  ‘conveyances carrying imported or exported goods’\t and
\nnot  to\t goods which are themselves  conveyances,  that\t is,
\nwhich  are either vessels, aircrafts or vehicles.  Going  to
\nChapter\t VII, Shri Setalvad particularly drew our  attention
\nto  Sec.46(2) which speaks of including in a Bill  of  Entry
\nthe goods mentioned in the bill of lading or other  receipts
\ngiven  by the carrier to the consignor and to the  unloading
\nof  goods referred to in sec.45 and 48 and argued  that\t the
\nreference to ‘goods’ here could only be to goods carried and
\nnot  to the carriers themselves as in Chapter VI. We do\t not
\nthink that we can accept this contention. It may be that  in
\nsec.46(2)  and elsewhere the word ‘goods’ is used in such  a
\nway  as not to include and as contradistinguished  from\t the
\nconveyances  in which the goods are carried, depending\tupon
\nthe context. But that does not mean that despite the defini-
\ntion, the word is never to be understood as defined and that
\nit should always be interpreted as never to include vessels,
\naircrafts  and\tvehicles even when there is nothing  in\t the
\ncontext justifying their exclusion. We can see no justifica-
\ntion  for holding that a vessel is not ‘goods’ for the\tpur-
\npose of sec.46(1).\n<\/p>\n
    The\t further question is whether the vessels which\thave
\nbeen converted into transhippers to be used in Indian terri-
\ntorial\twaters for topping up bulk carriers, can be said  to
\nbe vessels for home consumption merely on that account, even
\nthough when they entered Indian territorial waters they came
\nunder  their own power as ocean going vessels  and  notwith-
\nstanding that they are still capable of being used as  ocean
\ngoing vessels and are in fact so used during the  off-season
\nwhen it is not practicable to do topping up operations\tand,
\nfor that matter, even during the fair season when they\thave
\nnecessarily to go into the open sea to go alongside the bulk
\ncarriers  in  open anchorages. In both the cases  before  us
\nthere can be no doubt that the vessels are not only  capable
\nof  being  used but are used as cargo ships to\tcarry  cargo
\nfrom  one  Indian port to another or some times\t to  foreign
\nports,\tnecessarily  going out on the high  seas.  They\t are
\nstructural and technically competent to go on the high\tseas
\nand they have been certified to be so competent by appropri-
\nate  maritime  authorities. Instead of\tremaining  idle\t and
\ngetting\t rusty, during off-season, that is when\t because  of
\ninclement  monsoon weather topping up operations  cannot  be
\ndone  in  Mormugao harbour, the vessels do go out  into\t the
\nopen  sea sometimes from one Indian port to another  and  at
\nother times to foreign ports. Of course, even in the  course
\nof  topping  up\t operations during the fair  season,  it  is
\nnecessary  for the transhiphers to go into the open  sea  to
\nreach the bulk carriers. But, in our view, these  operations
\ndo  not\t make these vessels ocean going vessels\t when  their
\nprimary purpose and the purpose for
\n367<\/span>
\nwhich  they  were permitted to be purchased and\t brought  to
\nIndian\twaters,\t the  primary purpose for  which  they\twere
\nlicensed and the primary purpose for which they are used  is
\nto  conduct  topping  up operations  in\t Indian\t territorial
\nwaters and not to serve as ocean-going vessels. In the\tvery
\napplication  that  Chowgule and Co. Pvt. Ltd.  made  to\t the
\nGovernment of India for purchasing the vessel, it was stated
\nthat they wanted to purchase the vessel for use as a topping
\nup  vessel at Mormugao harbour for iron ore. The  permission
\ngranted was also for that purpose. The certificate of condi-
\ntion issued by Bureau Veritas showed that the vessel was  to
\nbe mainly employed as an ore loading barge in the harbour of
\nGoa  with the possibility of extending her ‘exploitation  in
\ncertain periods of the year as bulk carrier for small coast-
\ning  trade.’ Similarly in the case of the other vessel\talso
\nthe  application of M\/s. V.S. Dempos Company Pvt.  Ltd.\t was
\nfor  the  purpose of the vessel Jagat Swamini for use  as  a
\ntranshipper.  The Government of India also granted its\tper-
\nmission\t for  the conversion of Jagat Swamini for use  as  a
\ntranshipper at Mormugao port. It is clear from the  material
\nplaced\tbefore us that both the vessels, the  Maratha  tran-
\nshipper\t and Priyamavadha were originally ocean\t going\tves-
\nsels,  ,that  they were converted as  transhippers  for\t the
\npurpose of topping up iron ore at Mormugao harbour and\tthat
\nthey  traversed\t the  open sea from Yokohoma  in  Japan\t and
\nBremen\tin  Germany respectively to reach Mormugao.  At\t the
\ntime they entered the territorial waters at Mormugao it\t was
\ndistinctly understood and intended that the vessels were  to
\nbe primarily used for topping up operations at Mormugao.  If
\nocean journeys were to be undertaken either they were  inci-
\ndental to the primary purpose of topping up bulk carriers at
\nMormugao  or they were occasionally undertaken when  topping
\nup  operations\twere  not possible at  Mormugao\t during\t the
\ninclement  monsoon  season. This much is  indisputable\tthat
\nthough\tthe vessels came on the high seas to reach  Mormugao
\nharbour,  they were brought to India primarily for the\tpur-
\npose of topping up operations at Mormugao.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tour  view, for the purpose of the  levy\t of  Customs
\nDuty,  in order to determine whether any imported goods\t are
\ngoods for home consumption’, we have to find out the primary
\nintended use of goods when the goods are brought into Indian
\nTerritorial waters. If the goods are intended to be primari-
\nly  used in India, they are goods for home consumption\tnot-
\nwithstanding  that  they may also be used for  the  same  or
\nother  purposes\t outside India. We guard  ourselves  against
\nsaying\tthat the converse may be true. The question  whether
\ngoods  not intended to be primarily used in India  but\tused
\noccasionally for short periods in India also fail within the
\nmeaning of the expression ‘goods
\n368<\/span>
\nfor  home consumption’ has not been examined by us. We\thave
\nonly  considered  the question whether\tgoods  brought\tinto
\nIndia for use primarily in India are goods for home consump-
\ntion notwithstanding that they are occasionally or  inciden-
\ntally used outside India. We are of the view that they\tare.
\nThe vessels, in these two cases, were brought into India  to
\nbe  used primarily as Transhippers at Mormugao, though\tused
\nincidentally  or occasionally to go into the open sea.\tThey
\nare,  therefore, ‘goods for home consumption’ and not  ocean
\ngoing  vessels\tfor the purposes of the Customs\t Act.  After
\ntheir conversion they were no longer ocean going vessels, in
\nthe  full sense of the term that is in the sense that  their
\npredominant  purpose  was use as ships traversing  the\topen
\nseas. It was, therefore, necessary to present Bills of Entry
\nin respect of both the vessels.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t learned counsel for the appellants argued  that  it
\nhas been the consistent practice of the Customs\t Authorities
\nnot  to insist on Bills of Entry in the case of ocean  going
\nvessels.  They quoted the statement to that effect from\t the
\ncounter affidavit filed in Civil Appeal No. 4427 of 1985 and
\ncited  the example of a number of ocean going vessels  which
\nhad  not been required to present Bills of Entry. It may  be
\nthat  in the case of ocean going vessels, that\tis,  vessels
\nwhich  are primarily used for traversing the open seas,\t the
\nCustoms\t Authorities  have not been insisting  on  Bills  of
\nEntry being presented. It may be that the vessels  mentioned
\nby  the\t Appellants as having been permitted to\t enter\tinto
\nIndian\tTerritorial  waters without Bills of Entry  are\t not
\nprimarily  intended  to be used in India and  that  they  do
\nanswer\tthe  description of ocean going vessels. We  do\t not
\nhave  precise  information about those vessels\tto  conclude
\nthat  the  character of those vessels was the  same  as\t the
\nTranshippers with which we are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result,  both the appeals are\tdismissed  with\t the
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t\t     Appeals\ndismissed.\n369<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1176, 1987 SCR (2) 351 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: CHOWGULE & CO. PRIVATE LIMITED ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT19\/02\/1987 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87704","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-03T14:14:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"39 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T14:14:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\"},\"wordCount\":5744,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\",\"name\":\"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-03T14:14:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-03T14:14:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"39 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987","datePublished":"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T14:14:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987"},"wordCount":5744,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987","name":"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-03T14:14:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chowgule-co-private-limited-etc-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-19-february-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chowgule & Co. Private Limited Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87704","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87704"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87704\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87704"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87704"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87704"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}