Judgment :- All these four petitions are by the same petitioner. He originally filed W.P. Nos. 807 and 1016 of 1956 for the issue of Writs of mandamus and W.P. Nos. 374 and 375 of 1957 were filed in the alternative in respect of the same orders praying for the issue of writs of certiorari. The subject-matter, therefore, of all these writ petitions is identical. 2.The petitioner is a merchant carrying on business in paper. These writ petitions are directed to question the validity of the assessment to customs duty effected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, who has been impleaded as a respondent in these writ petitions. W.P. No. 807 of 1956 relates to duty levied upon the import of newsprint which arrived in Madras in or about September, 1954 while W.P. No. 1016 of 1956 is with regard to the duty levied upon certain imports which came to Madras in or about 31-3-1952. The point in controversy in these writ petitions, as I have stated earlier, is with regard to the propriety of the quantum of duty levied upon the petitioner in respect of the two imports. The petitioner imported under O.G.L. newsprint containing not less than 70% mechanical wood pulp. Under the Tariff "newsprint in reels" is subject to a specific duty at Rs. 1-9-1/5 per Cwt. whereas "newsprint in sheets" and other paper are chargeable with ad valorem duty at 39-3/8% of the C.I.F. value. The petitioner claimed that he should be charged at the lower rate as on "newsprint in reels" but the Customs Authorities, however, insisted upon the petitioner paying ad valorem duty which he did and cleared the goods. The petitioner applied for refund of the excess duty collected from him and this was refused. It is the legality of the orders refusing the refund prayed for by the petitioner that is challenged in these writ petitions. The petitioner applied for refund of the excess duty collected from him and this was refused. It is the legality of the orders refusing the refund prayed for by the petitioner that is challenged in these writ petitions. 3.The ground upon which the Assistant Collector of Customs refused the refund in respect of newsprint imported in 1952 which is the subject matter of W. P. No. 1016 of 1956 was stated in the order dated 20-5-1954 thus: - "This is a claim for assessment of coloured printing paper containing not less than 70% mechanical wood pulp at concessional rate instead of at 39-3/8% ad valorem under Item 44 of the Indian Customs Tariff." * 4.The assessment at the concessional rate can be made only on production of sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the statement that the coloured paper in reels are to be utilized for the printing of newspapers. No such evidences have been produced. The assessment made at 39-3/8% is in order and the claim for refund of duty is rejected. 5.The petitioner filed an appeal to the Collector of Customs who rejected it by his order dated 11-5-1955 which ran as follows:- "In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the paper imported by the appellant in this case was intended to be utilised in the printing of newspapers as required by the prevailing orders of the Government of India. I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising already passed. The appeal is rejected accordingly". 6.In relation to the later import and which is the subject matter of WP No 807 of 1956 the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs refusing refund was grounded on a different objection. This order dated 13-6-1955/11-7-1955 ran in these terms:-"The width of the newsprint paper imported was 13 1/4" . Newsprint paper of a width below 15" is correctly assessable to duty at 39-3/8% under Item 44 Indian Customs Tariff in accordance with existing practice. The assessment made is, therefore, in order and the claim for refund is rejected accordingly". 7. This order dated 13-6-1955/11-7-1955 ran in these terms:-"The width of the newsprint paper imported was 13 1/4" . Newsprint paper of a width below 15" is correctly assessable to duty at 39-3/8% under Item 44 Indian Customs Tariff in accordance with existing practice. The assessment made is, therefore, in order and the claim for refund is rejected accordingly". 7. There is no controversy that on the terms of the Customs Tariff Manual the petitioner is entitled to claim the lower rate of duty on newsprint, that no statutory rule exists which requires that the newsprint imported should be intended to be used exclusively for printing newspaper referred to in the order in relation to the first importation nor prescribing the minimum width of the newsprint to qualify for being classified as "newsprint in reels" referred to in the order in relation to the second import. What is, however, set out in the counteraffidavit is that these qualifications conformed to the prevailing practice and trade usage and had therefore to be read into the descriptions in the Tariff Manual as qualifying or modifying the statutory rules on the subject. The legality of this reasoning was considered by Rajagopalan J. in W.P. No. 402 of 1954 where the learned Judge stated:-"On behalf of the respondents, (Customs Authorities) it is contended that the trade usage justified the Customs Authorities treating the consignment imported bythe petitioner as paper other than newsprint. I am afriad it may not be permissible to read trade usage into the statutory description given in S. No 44 which I have extracted above. Since the requirements of S. No. 44 have been satisfied by the petitioner's consignment the petitioner is entitled to have that consignment assessed to Customs duty on the basis that it is newsprint". Learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute that if the principle of the decision of Rajagopalan J. were applied to the facts of the present case the order of the Customs Authorities levying a higher rate of duty could not be sustained. 8.The only objections raised to the claim of the petitioner were therefore of a technical nature. Learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute that if the principle of the decision of Rajagopalan J. were applied to the facts of the present case the order of the Customs Authorities levying a higher rate of duty could not be sustained. 8.The only objections raised to the claim of the petitioner were therefore of a technical nature. They were :-(1) that there has been a gross delay in the filing of the writ petitions and, therefore, this court should not interfere with the orders now impugned; (2) a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to refund the excess duty collected would not be the proper relief which this court could grant but that the petitioner, if at all, should apply for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Customs Authorities; (3) the petitioner has a remedy open to him by applying to the Central Board of Revenue in revision under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act and that this Court, should not interfere before the petitioner had exhausted his statutory remedies. 9.I do not see much substance in the objection regarding delay in filing the writ petitions. It would be seen from the narration of the facts that the orders refusing refund of the excess duty were passed in 1955. The explanation offered by the petitioner that at that stage W.P. No. 402 of 1954 in which the legality of like action by the Customs Authorities was pending, that the writ petition was disposed of only in December, 1955 and that therefore, he waited till the disposal of that writ petition for moving this court appears to me to be acceptable. In my judgment in the circumstances it would not be proper to refuse relief to the petitioner on the ground of delay. 10.In regard to the second point about the form of the writ open to the petitioner for the reliefs he is claiming, I consider the objection as having some force but the petitioner has since filed W.P Nos 374 and 375 of 1957 for the issue of writs of certiorari and in view of this, this objection is no longer maintainable. 11.The last of the objections was that the petitioner should have gone up in revision to the Central Board of Revenue. 11.The last of the objections was that the petitioner should have gone up in revision to the Central Board of Revenue. Whatever might be said as regards the case where an appeal is provided a statute the mere existence of a right of revision cannot be held to be an adequate alternative remedy sufficient to justify the court to refuse relief to the petitioner. I therefore overrule this last objection also.12The result is W. P. Nos. 374 and 375 of 1957 are . allowed and the orders refusing refund of the excess customs duty are set aside W. P. Nos. 807 and 1016 of 1956 are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions.