The second situation is where the understanding in the market parlance itself is uncertain.
The Supreme Court has laid down in the Reliance Cellulose Products vs Commissioner of Central Excise, 1997 (93) ELT 646 (SC), that the principle of market parlance does not hold good when the legislature had itself adopted a technical term in the tariff. In this case the term was cellulose ether.
The issue was whether sodium carboxymethyl cellulose could be treated as cellulose ether. The Supreme Court said this had to be decided on the basis of scientific definition and not market parlance. In any case such product do not have a market.
There is another type of situation where the Import Trade Control (ITC) Schedule contains descriptions, which are not amenable to the application of the principle of interpretation with reference to market parlance. In the Akbar Badruddin Jiwani vs Collector of Customs case, 1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC), the Import Trade Control Schedule appearing at Entry 25.15 contained the description as marble, travertine, ecaussine, alabaster and other calcareous stones.
Marbles were banned in the import policy. So the revenue department wanted to apply the ban on all marbles. Marbles in the market parlance included all the specific names of marbles mentioned in the Import Trade Control Schedule namely, travertine, ecaussine, alabaster and other calcareous stones.
The Supreme Court ruled that since these were specifically named in the licence, the question of applying the ban on marbles in general by applying the theory of market parlance could not arise.
For in that case there would be no idea in writing the names of some marbles specifically in the licence. So the meaning of marbles in this context would be to include all other marbles except the specific ones mentioned here.
The concept of market parlance would also not be applicable when there is a specific definition available in the statute (See Dunlop India Ltd vs Union of India case, 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (SC)).
Thus the market parlance theory has its own place. It has its importance but it cannot be overused or emphasised. If there is no statutory definition, market parlance comes into play.
But it does not apply under various circumstances again. We have to take care of such situations and apply this principle where it should actually apply and not in a doctrinaire manner.
The author is a former member of the Central Board of Excise & Customs
