'Wikipedia Not Completely Dependable' : Supreme Court Cautions Courts & Adjudicating Authorities

In a judgment delivered today, the Supreme Court cautioned the courts and adjudicating authorities against use of 'wikipedia'  for legal dispute resolution.

These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd­sourced and user­generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.

In this case, ‘All ­in ­One Integrated Desktop Computer' imported by Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. were classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’ as per the prevalent self­ assessment procedure. During subsequent examination by the Custom Authorities, these were classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’, which was later confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). These findings were further affirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

In appeal, the issue considered by the Apex Court was regarding the correct classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines which are popularly known as ‘All­in­One Integrated Desktop Computer’ under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

The court noted that the adjudicating authorities, especially the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), in their orders, have extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusion. 

"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 user­generated 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 courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources"

The court noted that, in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v Acer India (P) Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 382, it was observed that Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia and information can be entered therein by any person and as such it may not be authentic.

On facts, the bench observed that the Concerned Goods are not portable for the following reasons :

"Firstly, the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted and; secondly there being no protective case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be carried around easily during daily transit. We, thus, hold that the Concerned Goods are not ‘portable’."

Allowing appeal, the bench set aside the impugned orders which classified the Concerned Goods under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’.

Case details

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 43 | CA 5373 OF 2019 | 17 January 2023 | Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath

For Appellant(s) Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Mr. Aaditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Ishita Mathur, Adv.

Headnotes

Wikipedia - Adjudicating authorities especially Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusion - 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 - These sources, despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd­sourced and user­generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information - The courts and adjudicating authorities should rather make an endeavor to persuade the counsels to place reliance on more reliable and authentic sources - Referred to Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v Acer India (P) Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 382. (Para 14)

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Since the customs authorities wanted to classify the goods differently, the burden of proof to showcase the same was on them. (Para 23)

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines - Portable - Weight cannot be the sole factor to determine the factum of portability. Instead, the essential ingredients to logically establish whether an ADP is ‘portable’ are (1) their ability to be carried around easily which includes all aspects such as weight and their dimensions- In appropriate cases, this assessment would also take into consideration the necessary accessories which are required for safe and efficient usage such as mounted stands or any power adapters (1) the ADP must be suitable for daily transit of a consumer and would include aspects such as durability to withstand frequent commute and damage protection - The Concerned Goods are not portable for the reasons (1) the diagonal dimension of the Concerned Goods being minimum of the length of 18.5 inches and the same needs to be transported along with the power cable as well as the applicable stand in most cases if it is to be mounted and (2) there being no protective case designed by the markets for daily transport for these Concerned Goods. Such requirements make the Concerned Goods unable to be carried around easily during daily transit. 

Click here to Read/Download Judgment