C.C.E.C. ST., VISHAKHAPATNAMversusJOCIL LTD.

                  (2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1048


A               C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM
                                  v.
                             JOCIL LTD.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 6979-82 of 2009)
                       DECEMBER 15, 2010
B
               [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND
                      ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

        Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
c
         Classification - Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 - Palm
    Stearin imported by respondent during the period August
    2003 and November 2004 - Held: Classifiable under Tariff
    Item No. 38 23 11 12 and not under Tariff Item No. 15 11 90
0   90 - The product imported was non-edible - For goods to fall
    into Chapter 15, there has to be the element of "edible oil" -
    Non-edible industrial grade oil cannot be brought within the
    ambit of Animal or vegetable "edible oil" falling under Chapter
    15.

E       First Schedule; General Rules for Interpretation - Rule
    3(a) - Held: Heading which provides the most specific
    description shall be preferred to headings providing a more
    general description.

F        HSN Explanatory Notes - Classification - Held: If the
    goods answer to a description which more clearly identifies
    them, that description is more specific - Interpretation of
    Statutes.

      Interpretation of Statutes: Excise and custom tariff
G headings - Classification under - Held: The headings are of
  paramount importance - HSN Explanatory Notes state that
  the headings are expected to cover the broad ambit of
  classification since it is impossible to cover all the goods

H                               1048
 C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD. 1049


specifically in titles - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HSN       A
Explanatory Notes.

    The question which arose for consideration in the
instant appeals filed by the revenue was whether the
CESTAT was justified in holding that the Crude Palm 8
Stearin imported by the respondent during the period
August 2003 and November 2004 was classifiable under·
Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 and not under Tariff Item ·
No. 38 23 11 12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

    Allowing the appeals, the Court                           C

     HELD: 1. Chapter 15 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ·
covers palm oil and its fractions, which may be refined ·
or unrefined, but the critical condition is that the product ·
must not be chemically modified. The argument that palm · o
stearin, a fraction of palm oil, being comprised primarily
of triglycerides of fatty acids should be classified in
Chapter 15 by way of exclusion from Chapter 38 which
covers industrial carboxylic acids (or in other words, free
fatty acids) is compelling, but not decisive. This argument ·E
stems from the interpretation favoured in Rule 3(b) of the
General Rules for the interpretation of the First Schedule
to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, wherein the essential
character of the subject matter determines its
classification. [Para 11] [1058-G-H; 1059-A-B]
                                                               F
     2. Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation
specifically state that "the titles of Sections, Chapters and
sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for
legal purposes, classification shall be determined
according to the terms of the headings and any relative G
Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings
or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the
following (subsequent) provision:" The headings are of
paramount importance, and as the HSN Explanatory
Notes state, the headings are expected to cover the H
   1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A broad ambit of classification since it is impossible to
  cover all the goods specifically in titles. The title of
  Chapter 15 reads "Animal or vegetable fats, oils, waxes,
  etc." For goods to fall into Chapter 15, there has to be the
  element of "edible oil". Non-edible industrial grade oil
B cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought within
  the ambit of Animal or vegetable "edible oil". However,
  Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation stipulates
  that the "heading which provides the most specific
  description shall be preferred to headings providing a
c more general description". While it is not practicable to
  lay down hard and fast rules to determine which heading
  is more specific, the HSN Explanatory Notes state that if
  the goods answer to a description which more clearly
  identifies them, that description is more specific where
  the identification is less complete. In the case at hand, the
0
  subject matter in question is specifically identified in Ch.
  Sub Heading No. 38 23 11 as "Palm Stearin", and further
  differentiated as "Crude" and "RBD" in Sub Heading
  Nos. 38 23 11 11 and 38 23 11 12 respectively. The
E Explanatory Notes are categorical in affirming the
  accepted practice that Rule 3(b), which the CESTAT and
  the Respondent has referred to, shall be used only if
  classification under Rule 3(a) fails. In this instance, the
  issue of the essential character of the subject matter in
  question may be resorted to only if identification under
F Rule 3(a) is impossible. Since the description offered in
  Chapter 38 certainly attempts to identify 'Palm Stearin'
  within its ambit, it is not necessary to place reliance on
  the explanation offered by the Respondent. [Paras 12, 13]
  [1059-C-H; 1060-A-C]
G
       3. By contending that free carboxylic acids are
  classified under Chapter 38, and thus the· remaining
  component from refining process, viz. palm stearin which
  contains triglycerides, should be shunned to Chapter 15,
H the respondent is implying that Chapter 15 is of a
 C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD. 1051


residuary nature. This would go against the very grain of     A
rules of classification, as is mentioned in the General
Rules of Interpretation, as well as precedents established
by this Court. (Para 14] (1060-C-D]

     Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union · 8
of India (UOI) and Ors. (1976) 2 sec 241 - relied on.

    Mis Jocil Ltd. & Ors v. The Commissioner of Central
Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam 2008 (225) ELT 540 (Tri-
540); Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
Bombay 1997 (89) ELT 16 - referred to.                        c
    4. Referring to the essential characteristics of the
subject matter would not only be applying contorted
logic in arriving at the correct classification but would
also amount to ignoring the express identification offered    o
in Chapter 38 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975. The CBEC Circular needs to be thus
harmonized with the Eight-digit First Schedule
introduced by the Customs Tariff (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2003. The Circular had been issued prior to        E
the coming into force of the amended Tariff Schedule and
consequently, did not have the latter as its reference
point. The goods, which were imported between August
2003 and November 2004, would undoubtedly be
classified under the Eight Digit Tariff Schedule and on
                                                               F
account of the said reasons, the subject matter in
question will be classifiable under Chapter 38 of the same.
Having held thus, it is also important to note that the
interpretive powers of this Court are significantly
curtailed by the presence of a specific enumeration in
Chapter 38 of the Tariff Schedule. This Court, while          G
deciding an issue of classification, can only adjudicate
along the lines of settled norms and precedents drawn
from statutory interpretation and judicial precedents.
[Paras 15-17] [1061 ·A~F]
                                                               H
    1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A                        Case Law Reference:
        2008 (225) ELT 540 (Tri) referred to              Para 4
        1997 (89) ELT 16             referred to          Para 7
        (1976) 2 sec 241             relied on            Para 13
B
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    6979-6982 of 2009.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 24.02.2009 of the
c   Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal
    Bench at Bangalore in Appeal No. C/576 to 579 of 2008.

         B. Bhattacharya, ASG, Aritjit Prasad, Ajay Singh, B.
    Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.

D       K.V. Mohan for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. The primary issue
  for consideration in these cases is one of classification under
E Tariff Items of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We are called upon
  to decide the specific issue as to whether cargo imported is
  classifiable as non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin
  falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 or as "RBD
  Palm Stearin" falling under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the
F Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

       2. The brief facts which give rise to the aforesaid issue are
  that the Respondent imported Crude Palm Stearin through
  Kakinada Port and filed Bills of Entry declaring the goods as
G industrial grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub
  Heading No. 15 11 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
  [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] and the bills of entry were
  assessed provisionally on the basis of the importer's
  declaration pending receipt of the test results from the chemical
H examiner. 'Palm Stearin', the subject matter of classification in
  C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD. 1053
          [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
question, was imported through Kakinada port during the            A
period from 26.08.2003 to 28.12.2004. Whereas the
Respondent-assessee sought to classify the goods in question
under Tariff Item No. 15 11 90 90 of the Customs Tariff Act,
1975 as "Non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin", the
appellant classified the goods in question as "RBD Palm            B
Stearin" falling under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the Act,
chargeable to duty at BCD 25%, CVD 16% and 4% SAD.
Under Tariff Item No. 15 11 90 90, the assessment was
charged at BCD 20% and nil CVD/SAD. The Assistant
Commissioner of Customs asked the Respondent to pay the            c
differential duty, under S.28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

      3. The Chemical Examiner, Visakhapatnam reported that
the goods in question were RBD Palm Stearin with an
admixture of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (in short "PFAD") and
not crude palm stearin as declared by the importer. After due      D
adjudication process, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs
finalized the Bills of Entry by classifying the impugned goods
as RBD Palm Stearin falling under Sub-heading No.
3823.11.12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and demanded the
differential duty along with applicable interest. Aggrieved by     E
these orders, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner (Appeals). When the dispute in this regard
reached the Commissioner (Appeals), the claim of the
Respondent was dismissed and the order of the Asst.
Commissioner upheld. However, on appeal to the CESTAT,             F
the Tribunal allowed the same while relying on its decision in
the case of Mis Jocil Ltd. & Ors v. The Commissioner of
Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam - II.

     4. The CESTAT, in determining the appeal, took note of        G
the fact that the Chemical Examiner has only ascertained the
free fatty acids of the sample, which comes to 23.2%. According
to the Tribunal, since the balance contents of 76.8% have not
been considered, it could not be conclusively said that the same
is not composed of triglycerides. The CESTAT also relied on
                                                                   H
    1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A the ester value and saponification value registered at the load
  port (Load Port Analysis) during the time of clearance. The said
  analysis indicated that the balance is nothing but triglycerides.
  According to the Central Revenue Chemical Laboratory
  (CRCL) opinion which was relied upon by CESTAT, Chapter
B 15.11 covers palm oil and its fractions - this view is also
  espoused in the HSN Explanatory Notes. Since Palm Stearin.
  falling under 15.11 is a glyceride of fatty acids, the CESTAT
  concluded that the categorization should also have to be made
  under Ch.15.11. As stated hereinabove, reliance was also
c placed on its own decision in Mis Jocil Ltd. & Ors v. The
  Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam
  - II reported at [2008 (225) ELT 540 (Tri-540]]. Aggrieved by
  the decision of CESTAT, the appellant has approached this
  Court by way of Civil Appeal.
D        5. The appeal was listed for hearing and we heard the
    learned counsel appearing for the parties who have ably taken
    us through all the relevant documents on record and also
    placed before us the various decisions which may have a
    bearing on the issues raised in the present appeal.
E
         6. Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant
    contended that the goods in question are RBD Palm Stearin
    with Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) and hence must be
    classified under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the Act. We may
F   enumerate the arguments put forth by the appellant on this count:


          a.    Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 is a specific heading,
                which must be given preference over a general
                description as in Tariff Item No. 15 11 90 90. A~
G               per Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation
                of the First Schedule to the Act, when for any
                reasons goods are prima facie classifiable under
                two headings, the general description must give
                way to the specific.
H
 C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD. 1055
         [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

     b.    In separate test reports in respect of samples         A
           drawn from various consignments, the Chemical
           Examiner, Vishakhapatnam reported that the goods
           in question are RBD Palm Stearin with PFAD and
           not Crude Palm Stearin. The report clearly indicates
           that the substance has been chemically modified,       B
           and cannot be called 'crude' in any way.

     c.    Reliance on the Jocil Ltd case by the CESTAT is
           contentious as its decision in the same matter has
           been challenged by the appellant in the HC and is      C
           pending.

     d.    The Six-digit First Schedule to the Customs Tariff
           Act, 1975 was substituted by the Eight-digit First
           Schedule vide the Customs Tariff (Amendment)
           Ordinance, 2003 and this substitution w.e.f.           D
           01.02.2003 has statutory force. Therefore, the new
           Schedule would operate over and above the CBEC
           Circular dated 03.12.2002 and the latter would not
           be applicable since the new Schedule was not
           operational at the time of issuance of the Circular.   E
           The goods, which were imported between August
           2003 and November 2004, should therefore be
           classified under the Eight Digit Tariff Schedule.

     7. On the other hand, the Respondent has maintained that
the subject matter in question is industrial grade Crude Palm     F
Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975. To fortify this conclusion, they have
contended that: -

     e.    Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating       G
           and applying CBEC Circular dated 03.12.2002.
           Respondent claims that the circular had
           distinguished between products which are fractions
           of Palm Oil classifiable under Chapter 15, and
           products which are fatty acids classifiable under      H
    1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A            Chapter 38. The Respondent contends that the
             distinction between both these products was the
             presence of triglycerides, determined by the ester
             value of the product in question.

        f.   The Chemical Examiner did not ascertain the ester
B
             value of the goods in the chemical analysis, when
             it was incumbent on the department to do so. On
             the other hand, the Report determined free fatty
             acid, which clearly indicated that the product had
             triglycerides. When the authorities have thus
c            ignored the CBEC directions, the Respondent
             contended, the assessment needs to be set aside.

        g.   The onus to classify a particular product under a
             specific heading is on the Department [Hindustan
D            Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
             Bombay reported at 1997 (89) ELT 16). Therefore,
             the Department should have had the product
             chemically analyzed and record a finding that there
             were no triglycerides in the product. In the absence
E            of the same, the Respondent contends, the order
             of the authorities deserves to be quashed and set
             aside.

        h.   The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate
             that the oils were a combination of glycerides and
F            fatty acids. The compound usually has 5% fatty acid
             and PFAD is subsequently added to satisfy the
             requirement of free fatty acid of the oil to be above
             20% (this is done to ensure that oils which are
             meant for industrial use are not diverted for edible
G            purposes). Apart from fatty acid content of 25%, the
             rest, Respondent claims, is triglycerides which
             have ester value as recorded in the Load Port
             Analysis (not Chemical Examiner's report].

H       i.   Respondent also claims that its arguments are
 C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD. 1057
         [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

                  buttressed by the practice followed in this regard    A
                  by various other soap manufacturers in the country,
                  where the product in question is classified under
                  Tariff Item No. 15.

     8.ln order to determine the appropriate nature of the              8
subject matter in question, as well as to adjudicate upon
classification of the same under the Act of 1975, we may refer
to the sub-headings involved herein: -

    1511 Palm Oil and Its Fractions, Whether Or Not
    Refined, But Not Chemically Modified1511 10 00 -                    C
    Crude oil

    [... ]

    1511 90 - Other
                                                                        D
    1511 90 10 -           Refined bleached deodorised palm oil

    [ ... ]

    1511 90 90 -          Other
                                                                        E
    3823 Industrial Monocarboxylic Fatty Acids; Acid Oils
    from Refining; Industrial Fatty Alcohols

    Industrial monocarboxylic fatty acids; acid oils from refining:

    3823 11 -          Stearic acid:                                    F

              -     Palm stearin:

    3823 11 11 -             Crude

    3823 11 12 -             RBD                                        G

    9. Heading 15.11 covers palm oil and its fractions, whether
or not refined, but not chemically modified. According to the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (for
short "HSN") Explanatory Notes developed by the World                   H
    1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Customs Organization, Chapter 15 covers vegetable or animal
  fats and oils and their fractions when used as foodstuffs or for
  technical or industrial purposes. The CESTAT, in deciding the
  issue of classification, has relied upon the opinion of the
  Customs and Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) and
B a Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Circular dated
  03.12.2002 to fortify its conclusions. The CRCL opinion
  advised that heading 15.11 covers palm oil and its fractions,
  which include the constituent elements like triglycerides of fatty
  acids and point fractions obtained by the process of
c fractionation. The CBEC Circular had distinguished between
  triglycerides of fatty acids and free fatty acids and went on to
  state that palm stearin was basically a triglyceride (ester) of fatty
  acids. Based on this ground, and also on the fact that the report
  of the Chemical Examiner merely looked at the free fatty acid
  content and not the ester values to indicate the presence of
0
  triglycerides, the CESTAT ruled in favour of the respondent.

        10. We are of the considered opinion that the import of
  the CRCL opinion and the CBEC Circular needs to be
  understood in proper perspective. The mere fact that the CRCL
E opinion and the CBEC Circular (No. 81/2002 - dated
  03.12.2002) affirm the chemical composition of palm stearin
  cannot make a case for its classification under Ch. Sub
  Heading No. 15 11 90 90. The essential conclusion to be drawn
  from these two reference documents is that palm stearin, which
F is obtained from the fractionation of palm oil, is comprised
  mainly of triglycerides of fatty acids. The question then arises
  as to whether it would be appropriate to categorize the
  triglycerides present in the oil, viz. Palm Stearin, under Chapter
  15, while bracketing the free carboxylic acids derived during
G the refining process under Chapter 38.

         11. To answer this question, we may analyse the key
    aspects of classification under Chapter 15 - the chapter covers
    palm oil and its fractions, which may be refined or unrefined,
    but the critical condition is that the product must not be
H
 C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD. 1059
         [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA. J.]

chemically modified. The argument that palm stearin, a fraction         A
of palm oil, being comprised primarily of triglycerides of fatty
acids should be classified in Chapter 15 by way of exclusion
from Chapter 38 which covers industrial carboxylic acids (or in
other words, free fatty acids) is compE!lling, but not decisive.
This argument stems from the interpretation favoured in Rule            B
3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the First
Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, wherein the essential
character of the subject matter determines its classification.

      12. We also find that Rule 1 of the General Rules of
Interpretation specifically state that "the titles of Sections,         C
Chapters and sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference
only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined
according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section
or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not
otherwise require, according to the following (subsequent)              D,
provision:" The headings are of paramount importance, and as
the HSN Explanatory Notes state, the headings are expected
to cover the broad ambit of classification since it is impossible
to cover all the goods specifically in titles. It is relevant to note
that the title of Chapter 15 reads "Animal or vegetable fats, oils,     E
waxes, etc." and for goods to fall into Chapter 15, there has to
be the element of "edible oil". Non-edible industrial grade oil
cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought within the ambit
of Animal or vegetable "edible oil". However, Rule 3(a) of the
General Rules of Interpretation stipulates that the "heading            F
which provides the most specific description shall be preferred
to headings providing a more general description". While it is
not practicable to lay down hard and fast rules by which to
determine which heading is more specific, the HSN Explanatory
Notes state that if the goods answer to a description which more        G
clearly identifies them, that description is more specific where
the identification is less complete.

    13. In the case at hand, the subject matter in question is
specifically identified in Ch. Sub Heading No. 38 23 11 as
                                                                        H
    1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 OJ 14 (ADDL.) s:c.R.


A "Palm Stearin", and further differentiated as "Crude" and ''RBD"
  in Sub Heading Nos. 38 23 11 11 and 38 23 11 12
  respectively. The Explanatory Notes are categorical in affirming
  the accepted practice that Rule 3(b), which the CESTAT and
  the Respondent has referred to, shall be used only if
B classification under Rule 3(a) fails. In this instance, we are of
  the considered opinion that the issue of the essential character
  of the subject matter in question may be resorted to only if
  identification under Rule 3(a) is impossible. Since the
  description offered in Chapter 38 certainly attempts to identify
c 'Palm Stearin' within its ambit, we do not find it necessary to
  place reliance on the explanation offered by the Respondent.

        14. In effect, by contending that free carboxylic acids are
  classified under Chapter 38, and thus the remaining component
  from refining process, viz. palm stearin which contains
D triglycerides, should be shunned to Chapter 15, the Respondant
  is implying that Chapter 15 is of a residuary nature. This would
  go against the very grain of rules of classification, as is
  mentioned in the General Rules of Interpretation, as well as
  precedents established by this Court.
E
    In Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union
    of India (UOI) and Ors., reported at (1976) 2 SCC 241, this
    Court has held: -

        "37. [ ... ] When an article has, by all standards, a
F       reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated
        item in the Tariff Schedule, it will be against the very
        principle of classification to deny it the parentage and
        consign it to an orphanage of the residuary clause. [ ... ]

G       38. It is not for the Court to determine for itself under
        Article 136 of the Constitution under which item a particular
        article falls. It is best left to the authorities entrusted with
        the subject. But where the very basis of the reason for
        including the article under a residuary head[ ... ] is foreign
H       to a proper determination of this kind, this Court will be
  C.C.E.C. & ST., VISHAKHAPATNAM v. JOCIL LTD.                 1061
          [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

       loath to say that it will not interfere."                      A

     15. Referring to the essential characteristics of the subject
matter would not only be applying contorted logic in arriving at
the correct classification but would also amount to ignoring the
express identification offered in Chapter 38 of the First             8
Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

     16. We are of the opinion that the CBEC Circular needs
to be thus harmonized with the Eight-digit First Schedule
introduced vide the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance,
2003. As mentioned before, the Circular had been issued prior         G
to the coming into force of the amended Tariff Schedule and
consequently, did not have the latter as its reference point. The
goods, which were imported between August 2003 and
November 2004, would undoubtedly be classified under the
Eight Digit Tariff Schedule and on account of the                     D
aforementioned reasons, the subject matter in question will be
classifiable under Chapter 38 of the same.

     17. Having held thus, it is also important to note that the
interpretive powers of this Court are significantly curtailed by      E
the presence of a specific enumeration in Chapter 38 of the
Tariff Schedule. This Court, while deciding an issue of
classification, can only adjudicate along the lines of settled
norms and precedents drawn from statutory interpretation and
judicial precedents.

       18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, we are in
agreement with the contentions raised by the appellant and the
appeals are allowed. By this judgment, the order of the CESTAT
is set aside, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals]
affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner is restored.        G
However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

D.G.                                               Appeals allowed.