KASSAR v. COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

JUDGMENT OF SARKORDEE-ADOO J.S.C.

Sarkodee-Adoo J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant’s claim was for:

“(a) A declaration that the goods imported on bill of entry numbers D60787 dated the 9th November, 1960, D1552 dated the 9th January, 1961, and D5167 of the 23rd January, 1961 the total value of which exceeds £G500 are properly fents within the meaning of section 3 of the Customs Ordinance dutiable at two shillings per pound weight in accordance with Comptroller of Customs and Excise own previous classification and with those of his predecessors of goods of similar design, quality and description of the goods entered to the said bills of entry as cotton piece goods dutiable at one shilling per square yard is against his own previous classification and against the classifications of his predecessors and also against substantive law and therefore incorrect.

“(b) An order for the release of the said goods now detained by the Comptroller of Customs.”

The respondent denied the appellant’s claim and averred that the said goods are in fact cotton printed piece goods in respect of which duty is payable at the rate specified in item 10 (1) (a) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Customs Ordinance1.

[p. 111]

By consent the trial proceeded on the following issues: (1) whether or not, the goods which are the subject-matter of this suit were properly entered as “fents” by the plaintiff; (2) whether or not, if the said goods are “fents”, the defendant’s detention of the goods was justified by law.

At the trial the appellant led evidence to contest the classification of the exhibits and insisted that they were “fents” and further relied on the interpretation thereof by the London Chamber of Commerce, Information Department, as understood in that country, and also placed reliance on A.E. Blanco’s Piece Goods Manual for the definition therein contained.

In the course of the trial, however, the appellant by his counsel conceded to the classification of all the exhibits except exhibit M which he maintained was wrongly classified as piece goods and should be properly declared as “fents.”

The ground argued in support of the appeal is that the judgment is against the weight of evidence on the record which shows that the materials are all fents.

This appeal turns on the classification of exhibit M, which has been thoroughly examined by this court. This exhibit contains pieces of material all of two yards in length and of regular length.

By Se