Gandhidham Municipality vs Moji Furniture Works

G.T. Nanavati, J.—The opponent imported, within the Gandhidham Municipality, machine cut PATIAS made from timber. The Octroi Clerk charged octroi at the rate of 21/2% and recovered Rs. 234-40 on the basis that what was imported by the plaintiff was covered by Entry 18 of Appendix ''I'' of Gandhidham Municipal Borough Octroi Rules. It is the case of the plaintiff that PATIAS imported by it are timber, falling within Entry 17 of Appendix ''I'' of said Rules and attracting octroi duty at the rate of 1%. It, therefore, demanded refund of Rs. 136-27. As Gandhidham Municipality refused to refund the difference, it filed Small Cause Suit No. 7 of 1980 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Gandhidham. In respect of another consignment, for the same reason, it filed Small Cause Suit No. 10 of 1980. The learned Civil Judge upheld the contention of the opponents-plaintiff and decreed both the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in these two cases, by the learned Civil Judge, Gandhidham Municipality has preferred these revision applications. Both these revision applications are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

What is contended by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant-Municipality is that the learned Civil Judge committed an error in interpreting Entries 17 and 18 and wrongly held that PATIAS imported by the opponent attracted duty under Entry 17 which deals with timber and not under Entry 18 which deals with all kinds of sheets and boards. It was further submitted that admittedly the PARIAS were of thickness of about one inch. Therefore, they were nightly treated as boards made from timber. It was also submitted that as there is a specific entry for boards, the PATIAS imported by the opponent were rightly treated as boards for the purpose of octroi duty even though the said boards are of timber and in a larger sense can be regarded as timber.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the opponent that the PATIAS imported by the opponent can properly be described as planks and not as boards in English. As they were only machine cut pieces of timber, they should have been regarded as timber and covered by Entry 17 only. He also submitted that machine cut PATIAS are known as timber in trade circles and amongst consumers.

In order to appreciate these rival contentions, it will be necessary to refer to Entries 17 and 18 of the Rules. They read as under:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. Description of goods Rate of duty No. Rs. Ps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. Timber including Kachha Wood, Bamboos 1-00 Rs. 100 and Bailies Ad valorem 18. All kinds of Sheets, Boards, including 2-50 - do - Plywood, Soft boards, Hard Boards, Figure wood, Mesonite Oak wood and pressed sheets of any composition prepared by process and articles made thereof not specified elsewhere in the Schedule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we examine the Scheme of Appendix ''I'', it becomes clear that various items or articles are grouped together and put under one general head. Group ''A'' deals with food articles. Group ''B'' deals with cotton and yarn material. Group ''C deals with building material. Group ''D'' deals with provision and articles of consumption. Group ''E'' deals with machinery, motors and industrial articles and Group ''F'' deals with miscellaneous articles. Entry No. 39 in Miscellaneous Group ''F'' is, inter alia with respect to fire wood and fuel wood of all descriptions. Entries Nos. 17 and 18 are falling within Group ''C'' dealing with building material. Therefore, even when timber including kachha wood, is imported for any other use, it would attract octroi under Entry No. 17 or Entry No. 18 as building material. Entry No. 17 is a general entry dealing with timber and it includes kachha wood, bamboos and bailies. Timber can be in any form. It can be in the form of a log or it can be in the form of a plank or board or even in smaller pieces known by other names. Entry No. 18 deals with all kinds of boards and sheets and articles made from them and not specified elsewhere in the Schedule. The word ''all in Entry No. 18 indicates that a board, even though made out of timber, is included within that Entry. It is a specific Entry dealing with sheets, boards and articles made therefrom. Therefore, if it is found that what is imported is a sheet or a board or an article made therefrom, then that Entry will become applicable and not Entry No. 17 which deals with timber generally. A board or an article made from timber can in general sense be regarded as timber but as we are having two separate entries in the Rules attracting different rates of duty, it will have to be held that if what is imported is a sheet or board or an article made therefrom, then that would fall under Entry No. 18 and not under Entry No. 17.

Whether, in this case, the goods imported by the opponent attracted Entry No. 17 or Entry No. 18 will have to be decided by reference to the evidence led in the case and the meaning of the words ''sheet'', and ''boards'' as used in Entry No. 18. As stated above the evidence shows that the opponent has imported PATIAS which were about 9" to 12" in width, 36" to 48" in length and about one inch thick. The learned Civil Judge held that as the PATIAS were of thickness of half an inch to one inch and more, they could not be described as thin material. He also held that the word, ''timber'' is used in a larger sense in Entry No. 17 as it includes kachha wood. He also held that PATIAS imported by the opponent were only machine cut and therefore, they were only pieces of timber. The learned Civil Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the PATIAS imported by the opponent cannot be said to be thin material. But the only conclusion that can be drawn therefrom is that they could not have been regarded as sheets. What is the consequence of that finding has not been considered by the learned Civil Judge. He did not decide whether they were boards or not as contemplated by Entry No. 18.

Timber means that wood which is generally used as building material. The Rules also make a distinction between building material and fire wood or wood meant for fuel purposes. Group "A" of the Schedule, dealing with building material, again makes a distinction between timber and all kinds of sheets or boards. Therefore, if the item of building material in question can properly be termed as a sheet or a board or is so known in the market then octroi thereon will have to be paid under Entry No. 18. If the item is other than the one contemplated by Entry No. 18, then octroi thereon will have to be paid under Entry No. 17.

According to dictionaries word "sheet" means a rectangular piece of linen, cotton etc., or more or less a flat piece of thin material. Material may be anything, but a piece thereof can be called a "sheet" if it is flat and thin. Meaning of the word ''board'', as given in the Oxford English Dictionary, is as under:

A piece of timber sawn thin, and having considerable extent of surface, usually a rectangular piece of much greater length then breadth, a thin plank. Rarely used without the article, as is made of board i.e. of thin wood.

Technically board is distinguished from plank by its thinness; it ought to be more than 4 inches in width, and not more than 214 in thickness, but is generally much thinner.

Word "plank" has the following meaning:

long flat piece of smoothed timber, thicker than a BOARD; spec a length of timber sawn for building or other purposes to a thickness of from two to six inches, width of nine inches or more, and eight feet or upwards in length.

It becomes apparent from the above dictionary meanings of word "sheet", "board" and "plank" that a piece of wood can be regarded as a sheet, a board or a plank depending upon its thickness. If it is very thin, it has to be described as a sheet. If it has thickness of about 2" to 2XA" then it has to be regarded as a board and if its thickness is more than 2" or 21/2" then it has to be considered as a plank, provided it is sufficiently long and broad so as to be called either a "board" or a "plank".

9.1. What was contended by the learned Advocate for the opponent was that PATIAS, i.e., pieces of timber, imported by the opponent can properly be described as planks and not as boards or sheets. He is only partly right. Considering the evidence led in this case, they cannot be said to be sheets. But it is not possible to accept his contention that they are not boards, and they are correctly speaking planks. He submitted that word "PATIA" in Gujarati would mean a "plank" in English. He also submitted that that is how they are known by the traders and consumers. Word "PATIA", according to Modern Gujarati English Dictionary, published by Director of Languages, Gujarat State, is "a board". Therefore, it is not possible to accept his contention that the word "PATIA" in Gujarati means a plank and not a board. No evidence was led before the trial Court to show that only a plank and not a board is regarded as PATIA in trade parlance. Merely because the plaintiff in his evidence stated that the PATIAS imported by him would fall under Entry No. 17, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has proved that only planks are known as PATIAS amongst timber merchants and consumers. Therefore, going by the evidence led in the case, it will have to be held that the pieces of timber imported by the opponent were rightly treated as boards falling under Entry No. 18. The applicant had, therefore, rightly collected octroi duty on the same at the rate of 2 1/2%. The learned Civil Judge thus committed an error in holding that the PATIAS imported by the opponent were covered by Entry No. 17.

In the result, these revision applications are allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in both these cases are set aside and the two suits filed by the opponents are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs throughout. Rule in each of these revision applications is made absolute with no order as to costs.