Judgement ORDER :- This judgement will dispose of civil writ petitions Nos. 95-D of 1963, 143 D of 1963, 179-D of 1963 560 D of 1963, 561-D of 1963, 85-D of 1964 and 693 D of 1984. I am reciting the facts of civil writ No. 93 D of 1963 as if is the common case of the parties that the other writ petitions must abide trip result of judgement rendered in this case. 2. The petitioner imported 'tinplate waste waste' under a licence granted by the Iron and Steel Controller Government of India dated 23rd December, 1959. The description of the goods allowed to be imported under the said licence was - 'Tinplate waste waste 107 Ibs base weight and lighter up to 58 Ibs 18 inches X 24 inch and larger. The Customs authorities charged duty under item 63(10) of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff after refecting the claim of the petitioner that the goods in question fell under item 69(1) of the said Tariff The above-mentioned entries read as under :- 63 (10) 'Steel tinplates and tinned sheets, including tin taggers, and cuttings of such plates sheets and taggers - (i) of British manufacture; (ii) not of British manufacture.' 69 (1) 'Tin scrap and tinplate scrap." There is no dispute between the parties that on arrival the goods were allowed to be cleared as covered by the said licence, Item 69(1) was at the relevant time free from duty and so was item 63(20) the relevant part of which reads as under :- 'Iron or steel sheets other than high-silicon electrical steel sheets and stainless steel sheets . . . ." 3. The petitioner applied for the refund of the duty charged but the Assistant Collector of Customs by order dated 14th December 1960 rejected the claim of the petitioner and held - Tinplates waste waste are essentially tinplates. Though they are plates of inferior quality, they are not scrap as contended by the importers. The goods have been correctly assessed to duty under Item 63 (10) II I.C.T. No refund is due and the claim is accordingly refected." The petitions appealed against the said order but the Additional Collector of Customs- Bombay, refected the same on 27th September, 1961. The goods have been correctly assessed to duty under Item 63 (10) II I.C.T. No refund is due and the claim is accordingly refected." The petitions appealed against the said order but the Additional Collector of Customs- Bombay, refected the same on 27th September, 1961. The Additional Collector observed : 'Scrap means unserviceable material fit for smelting and remaking The goods under appeal although slightly defective and imperfect tinplates are serviceable for many purpose other than smelting and remaking. They have, therefore, been correctly assessed under item 83(10) ICT. Besides the Iron and Steel Controllers Schedule is not relevant for the purpose of assessment under Item 69(1). ICT. At the time of personal hearing, the appellants requested for re-assessment under item 63(19) ICT if item 89(1) ICT was inadmissible and promised to submit evidence to the effect that the goods under reference are only to be melted and rerolled straightway which they have failed to do Since tinplates all types - are covered specifically under item 83(10) ICT, they cannot be assessed under item 63 (19) ICT. In order to qualify for the above assessment the plates should be thicker than ½ inch. As the goods imported are much thinner than this the original assessment is in order." The petitioners revision petition before the Central Government was rejected by a summary order dated 3rd September, 1962. 4. Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that 'tinplate waste waste" cannot fall under any item except 69(1) because such waste is 100 percent scrap. In the alternative he claims mat the goods should be held to fall under items 63(19) and 63 (20) of the said Tariff. In support of his argument he also relied on Indian Customs Tariff Guide Tenth Edition page 408, which contains some instructions by the Central Board of Revenue with respect to the items covered by Section XV of the said Tariff. The relevant part. Section XV - For the purposes of assessment under this section, all pieces of iron or steel of uniform thickness and width will be classified according to the following tables :- Thickness Width Description 1. Less than 1/8 in. Not greater than 5 in Hoop or strip 2. Do Greater than Sheet 5 in. 3. * * * * * * 4. Not less than 1/8 in but less than 3/16 in. Greater than 5 in. Less than 1/8 in. Not greater than 5 in Hoop or strip 2. Do Greater than Sheet 5 in. 3. * * * * * * 4. Not less than 1/8 in but less than 3/16 in. Greater than 5 in. * * * * * * Flat pieces of iron or steel of uniform thickness but not of uniform width and discs and circles will be assessed as 'Plates' if the thickness is 1/8 inch or more; and as 'sheets' if less than 1/8 inch thick." Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal has also relied on the definition of 'scrap' given in Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 (as amended up to the 1st January, 1959), to show that material suitable, for re-rolling or re-melting or for other purposes may still fall under the definition of scrap'. 5. So far as the arguments of Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal based on the Indian Customs Tariff Guide are concerned, there is no material before me on the basis of which I can pronounce on the precise nature of the goods imported. It is significant that the petitioner made that claim before the Additional Collector but failed to produce any evidence to justify his claim for assessment under item 63(19) of the Tariff. No doubt, the Additional Collector does say that the goods imported are much thinner than 1/8 inch but that does not help the petitioner. Under the said Indian Customs Tariff Guide pieces of iron or steel of less than 1/8 inch's thickness are also classified, under item 2 quoted above, as sheets and item 63(10) also covers "tinned sheets". Moreover, I am not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in construing particular entry in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Tariff aid should be sought from administrative instructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue. The principal argument of Mr. Shankar is that it is for the Customs authorities to decide, having regard to the nature of goods and the other material, as to which entry in the Customs Tariff covers the goods in question end this Court will not re-assess the material in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. He also seeks to support the findings of the Customs authorities on merits and says that the goods were rightly treated as covered by item 63(10). He also seeks to support the findings of the Customs authorities on merits and says that the goods were rightly treated as covered by item 63(10). This is not a case where one can say that the goods imported fall under one entry of the Customs Tariff alone. No doubt, the goods were "tinplates waste waste" but such tinplates may be treated as "waste" because of certain minor defects but basically they may still remain tinplates. Mr. Shankar seeks to illustrate his argument by saying that a tinplate with 5 holes may be treated for the purpose of import as "tinplate waste waste" and yet such goods would essentially fall under item 63(10). I also agree with Mr. Shankar that the definition of scrap in the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 19S6, which regulates the disposal or export of iron and steel, cannot be decisive of the question requiring determination in this case. Even if that definition is taken into consideration it cannot mean that "tinplate waste waste" must always essentially fall in the category of 'scrap' 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am unable to say that the impugned orders suffer from any patent error calling for interference under Article 228 of the Constitution. In my opinion, the view taken by the authorities concerned is a possible one. These petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.