Wikipedia:The Supreme Court has stated that crowdsourced and user-generated editing models used by online sites like Wikipedia are not entirely reliable and can promote false information.
Online Sources such as Wikipedia not completely dependable
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath acknowledged the value of the websites that enable unrestricted access to information worldwide but issued a warning against utilising them to settle legal disputes.
The bench stated:
“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,”
Also Read: Joshimath sinking: Supreme Court to hear plea on January 16
Hewlett Packard India Sales vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Seva
In a case involving the proper classification of imported automatic data processing devices, Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, the Supreme Court made these observations. According to the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act of 1985, these are also known as “All in One Integrated Desktop Computers.”
In this instance, Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd.’s imports were categorised as “Tariff Item 8471 50 00.”
The assistant commissioner of customs and the commissioner of customs later acknowledged that the custom authorities had categorised them under “Tariff Item 8471 30 10.” (Appeal).
Although the rate of duty is the same for both tariff items, how it’s calculation varies.
Section 4A of the Central Excise Act of 1944, which valued excisable items based on a percentage of retail sale price, is applied to goods under “Tariff Item 8471 30 10.” A classification under “Tariff Item 8471 50 00” encourages price-based valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which would have effectively decreased the overall liability to pay the required duty.
Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) extensively refers online sources (Wikipedia)
According to the court judgement, the current disagreement regarding classification under the appropriate tariff item is specifically motivated by this disparity in obligation.
The Supreme Court highlighted that in support of their findings, the adjudicating bodies, particularly the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), had made substantial use of online resources like Wikipedia.
Keep watching our YouTube Channel ‘DNP INDIA’. Also, please subscribe and follow us on FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, and TWITTER.
