Judgment :- In these Writ Petitions, the common question that arises for decision is whether the Customs Authority, the respondent, had properly classified, under the appropriate classification in Part V of the I. T. C. Schedule, a product imported by the petitioners, viz., folding opera glasses "Eikow" brand 2.5 x 25 mm., manufactured by Messrs Eikow Optical Company Limited, Tokyo. The petitioners' contention was that this product came under Part V, Serial Nos. 93-94-(c) of the I. T. C. Schedule described as optical. Scientific, Philosophical and Surgical Instruments, apparatus and appliances and parts thereof. The stand of the Customs Authority, on the other hand was that the benefit of the classification under those entries would not be available, because of the exemption found recorded in the "Remarks" column against Items 93-94 which are bracketed and sub-division (c) thereof. The relevant exemption reads thus :- "Quota licences granted for this sub-item will not be valid for import of :- (i)Monoculars up to magnification 10x; (ii)Prism binoculars up to magnification 10x and apperture 50 mm -CIF price of which is less than Rs. 475 and non-prismatic binoculars." * Because of this view of the Department, the benefit of the licence was denied to the petitioners, for the import of opera glasses of the description mentioned above, and a relatively heavy penalty was levied in lieu of confiscation. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the above order. 2.It is common ground that the import licence granted to the petitioners referred to "Serial Nos. 93-94(c) in Part V of the I. T. C. Schedule which reads thus with a bracket covering 93-94(c) :" * 93. Optical, Scientific, Philosophical and Surgical instruments apparatus and appliances and parts thereof not made of rubber.94. Optical, Scientific, Philosophical and Surgical instruments, apparatus and appliances and parts thereof made of rubber. (c) Other optical instruments, apparatus and appliances. "Thus it is clear that, for the purpose of sub-item (c), both Items 93 and 94 are to be taken compendiously. The exemption which I have extracted above and which is found in the "Remarks" column 1, is shown against sub-item (c). Therefore the petitioners could claim the benefit of import under the licence, only if the product in question does not fall within the description found in the remarks column against sub-item (c) (ii) which I have extracted above. The exemption which I have extracted above and which is found in the "Remarks" column 1, is shown against sub-item (c). Therefore the petitioners could claim the benefit of import under the licence, only if the product in question does not fall within the description found in the remarks column against sub-item (c) (ii) which I have extracted above. The short contention of the petitioners is that the product is known to the trade, manufacturers and also the authorities, as "opera glasses", is different from the product known as binoculars, and that therefore the exemption in the "remarks" column would apply to binoculars only and "opera glasses" will not be covered by that exemption. On the other hand, the Department's view is that prism binoculars is a generic term, and that opera glasses form one type of product within the "genre", and therefore the product will be hit by the exemption clause. For clarifying the correct position as between these rival contentions, I was required to refer to both the dictionary meaning of the words "binoculars" and "opera glasses", and also what the well known McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology has to say in the matter. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "binoculars" in the adjective form as "adapted to the use of both eyes". 3.In the noun form, it means an 'optical instrument composed of two refracting telescopes mounted on a single frame and containing erecting systems usually with both focusing tubes simultaneously adjustable by means of a single screw'. An 'opera glass' is defined in the same Dictionary, as 'a small binocular optical instrument similar to the field glass and adapted' for use at the opera or theatre-often used in plural'. McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia defines 'binoculars' as Optical instruments designed for use with both eyes to give enhanced views of distant objects. The distinguishing performance feature of binoculars, compared to monocular instruments, is the depth perception obtainable. The Encyclopaedia goes into the technical aspect of the instrument and explains how, with reference to lens optics, binoculars afford depth perception of objects in contradistinction with monocular instruments. Reference is made, in the course of the discussion, how the simple refracting principle introduced in the Galilean telescope has been improved upon, by means of prism append; ages, so as to enlarge the converging angle of distant objects at the normal eye-vision viz. Reference is made, in the course of the discussion, how the simple refracting principle introduced in the Galilean telescope has been improved upon, by means of prism append; ages, so as to enlarge the converging angle of distant objects at the normal eye-vision viz. 30 seconds of Arc can be enhanced, so as to bring more and more distant objects into focus. But opera glasses, according to McGraw-Hill's description are small binocular telescopes adapted for use where magnification and field of view are secondary to compactness and cost. The Galilean design is most often used opera glasses, because of its inherent shortness and simplicity of construction. Because of the restriction of the field of view, opera glasses are usually limited to magnifications under 5 power. It is thus clear that opera glasses are essentially a form of binoculars, whose distinguishing features are greater simplicity of design, and restricted field of view and equipment with lower power lens, whereas binoculars are designed to cover a wide range, from glasses with low field of view and low-power, to glasses with a large field of view and high power, where the help of prisms is secured to improve the simpler Galilean type of refracture. It is in this context that we may note that against entry 93-94 (c) in the remarks column (i) Monoculars up to magnification 10x and (ii) Prism binoculars up to magnification 10x and apperture 50 mm and non-prismatic binoculars are referred to. Therefore when the language for the grant of exemption has been drafted in the remarks column as mentioned above, the authorities, were having in mind (1) the distinction between monoculars and binoculars, (2) the distinction between prismatic binoculars and non-prismatic binoculars and (3) the distinction between low power lens and high power lens. Finally the element of low cost is also noted in the prismatic binoculars. It is a well-known fact that opera glasses without prism attachment are intended for use for near objects with a narrow field of view as in theatres, but more complicated binoculars with prism attachment are used for viewing distant objects with a larger field of view. At the time of hearing of the writ petitions, I was shown a sample of the petitioners' opera glass, which is a simple non-prismatic binoculars; and also a prismatic binoculars designed for long-distance vision. At the time of hearing of the writ petitions, I was shown a sample of the petitioners' opera glass, which is a simple non-prismatic binoculars; and also a prismatic binoculars designed for long-distance vision. 4.I was taken through several decisions in which the correct approach to the problem, like the one before me, has been explained both by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court. I shall briefly refer to them. In Kishinchand Chellaram v. Joint Commercial Tax Officer a Bench of this Court, while dealing with the description of artificial silk contained in the Third Schedule to the Madras General Sales Tax Act observed :" * .....Courts are bound to have recourse to the meaning attributable to such words by persons who are dealing in such goods and utilising such goods. In other words, the extreme, peculiar and scientific meaning of the words which might sometimes deviate from the popular meaning, cannot prevail. Ordinarily, courts when called upon to interpret the meaning of such words, mainly rely upon their popular and ordinary meaning. The meaning which the trade, Government officials and statutes attribute to the words "artificial silk" must be taken to be the ordinary and popular meaning of the same. "In Rikabdoss Bhavaral v. Collector of Customs 1962 II M.L.J 443 which was a case of interpretation of a description of a product in the I.T.C. schedule, a Bench of this Court observed that where there has been a classification of certain goods as "Adhesive tape" and Black insulating tape which are treated as separate and distinct and which has been so understood by the importer, the trade and the authorities, it is not open to the authorities to put the "Black insulting tape" into the category of "Adhesive tape" even assuming that the black insulating tape has an adhesive quality. In Mercantile Express Company v. Assistant Customs Collector [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 552) (Cal.) = 1958 AIR(Cal) 630] Mukharji, J. of the Calcutta High Court examined afresh the terms "bridges" and culverts, for the purpose of item 63(9) of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, and held that "culverts" would be covered by the term "bridges". In Mercantile Express Company v. Assistant Customs Collector [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 552) (Cal.) = 1958 AIR(Cal) 630] Mukharji, J. of the Calcutta High Court examined afresh the terms "bridges" and culverts, for the purpose of item 63(9) of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, and held that "culverts" would be covered by the term "bridges". He also observed that the Customs authorities would be bound by their own precedents in administering taxing statutes involving the very basis of taxation in respect of particular article and that they should not modify their own previous decisions but should leave it to courts or Parliament or Legislatures, as the case may be, to put the law beyond doubt. 5.The last mentioned observation of Mukharji, J. has been relied upon by the petitioners' counsel, because it is urged that, on a prior occasion, the authorities had been inclined to permit import of opera glasses under licence granted under Part V entry 93-94 (c) without raising an objection. As against this, the learned counsel for the Department points out that Mukharji, J. has not based his conclusion exclusively upon the binding nature of the previous assessments or exemptions granted by the Customs authorities, but he has also considered the description of the articles afresh, for the purpose of arriving at his own decision on the merits of the case, and that the reference to prior view, of the Customs authorities has been given by the learned Judge only by way of support to his own decision about the correct description of the items in question. On the other hand a Bench of this Court in Collector of Customs v. Hajarimall 1963 AIR(Madras) 399 has observed, in the matter of prior decisions and their binding character :" * The opinion of the Chief Controller of Imports in regard to the previous year's import cannot at all be decisive of the content of the consignment imported in the following year. He has no doubt the authority to determine the heading or entry under which a particular commodity can be brought. But what is the commodity that has been actually imported is the question that has got to be and perhaps can be determined by the Customs authorities alone. He has no doubt the authority to determine the heading or entry under which a particular commodity can be brought. But what is the commodity that has been actually imported is the question that has got to be and perhaps can be determined by the Customs authorities alone. "In Collector of Customs v. K. Ganga Setty the proper method of approach to be adopted by the courts, when reviewing the decisions of the customs authorities in regard to the classification of goods, has been stated thus :" * It is primarily for the Import Control authorities to determine the head or entry in tariff schedule under which any particular commodity well; but if in doing so, these authorities adopted a construction which no reasonable person could adopt i.e., if the construction is perverse, then it is a case in which the Court is competent to interfere, in other words, if there were two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear, and one of them which was in favour of Revenue was adopted, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation favourable to the appeals to the Court as the better one to adopt 6.Reference was made by learned counsel for the petitioners to the entries in the Index in the Red Book (I.T.C. Policy Book) where opera glasses are to be referred under Item V. 93 and binoculars are also to be referred under item V 93, the two items being shown separately. On the basis of this separate entry in the Index, the petitioners' counsel urged that opera glasses are different from binoculars. As against this, it has to be pointed out that the I.T.C. Policy book itself, in the preamble to the Index, prescribes the following caution in applying the entries in the Index for the purpose of classification:" * Index shows the I.T.C. classification of items for guidance and convenience. The eligibility of an item for import, however, is governed by the policy of the item as shown in Section II". This caution stated in the preamble to the Index shows that the Index classification should not be the guide when dispute arises and that it is the classification as shown in the body of the Policy Book itself under Section II that should be the main guiding factor. This caution stated in the preamble to the Index shows that the Index classification should not be the guide when dispute arises and that it is the classification as shown in the body of the Policy Book itself under Section II that should be the main guiding factor. 7.I have carefully considered whether , in adopting the principles used in defining or describing opera glasses and binoculars, the Dictionary as well as in the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia have laid stress on the technical or scientific aspect in preference to the ordinary or popular aspect in the context of the description in the "remarks" column of the Schedule. It is well known that dictionary meanings ' reflect the popular and ordinary meanings of the words and in the case of binoculars and opera glasses, the Dictionary meaning which is the popular and ordinary meaning is no way different from the scientific and technical meaning recorded in the Encyclopaedia. Further, in the intrinsee particulars contained in the Remark column, to which I have made reference, in regard to the distinction between monoculars and binoculars and prismatic and non-prismatic binoculars also, the authorities were really having in mind the position that opera glasses are only one form of binoculars and not different from them altogether. For the above reason, I see no grounds to interfere with the decision of the Revenue, in these writ petitions.8. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.