Courts Should Not Rely On Wikipedia: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned courts and adjudicating authorities against reliance on free online sources like Wikipedia [HP India Sales Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) Nhava Sheva].

"While we expressly acknowledge the utility of these platforms which provide free access to knowledge across the globe, but we must also sound a note of caution against using such sources for legal dispute resolution. We say so for the reason that these sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd­sourced and user ­generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous occasions also."

The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside a CESTAT order that had held that desktop computers weighing under 10 kliograms are to be classified as 'portable' and would attract higher customs duty than other computers.

The appellant companies had moved the top court after the West Zonal Bench of the CESTAT upheld orders of officials below that had effectively meant that their desktops imported could not avail lower customs duty available to heavier processing units.

The counsel for the companies pointed out that the 10 kg bracket was meant for laptops, and not goods that could not function without an external power source.

The aspect of functionality and ease of transporting the goods need also to be considered to determine functionality, it was argued.

Further, it was argued that the World Customs Organisation’s Harmonised System Explanatory notes also do not classify desktop computers as portable, and so a dictionary meaning of the term could not be relied upon.

"Scientific progress has greatly reduced the weight associated with high performance in the context of ADPs. It is not surprising that the advent of LED technology, faster microchips, etc. has made it possible for mobile phones to have performance specifications which merely a decade ago was possible only on high end laptops. We must therefore be cognizant of such an impact on the consumer’s understanding of any good or trade."

The Court took a brief trip to the past by referring to luggables (heavy personal computers).

"They used to weigh more than 10 kilograms. These old predecessors of laptops were designed at the relevant time to be portable and used to fold up neatly in one box with a handle. Despite their weight and the size comparable to small suitcase, they could still be transported, albeit without a wagon."

The appeals were, therefore, allowed, and the respondents were directed to levy duty on the products in question as applicable to general processing units.

The Court clarified that the prevalent self-assessment by the appellants as to the nature of their goods had to be accepted since the burden of proof to deem otherwise was on the customs department, and the latter had failed to do so.

Advocates V Lakshmikumaran, Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Mounica Kasturi, Apeksha Mehta, and Pranav Mundra represented the appellants.

Senior Advocate Arijit Prasad with advocates Rupesh Kumar, Adit Khorana, OP Shukla, Sunita Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav and Mukesh Kumar Maroria appeared for the respondents.