New Delhi: Online sources such as Wikipedia are based on a crowdsourced and user-generated editing model that is not completely dependable and can promote misleading information, the Supreme Court has said.A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Vikram Nath said it acknowledged the utility of the platforms that provide free access to knowledge across the globe but also cautioned 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 bench said on Tuesday, January 17.The top court made these observations while hearing the case Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, regarding the correct classification of imported automatic data processing machines. These are also called ‘All in One Integrated Desktop Computer’ under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.In this case, the items imported by Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. were classified under ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’.However, the custom authorities classified them under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’, which was later confirmed by the assistant commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), LiveLaw reported.Also read: The State of Justice in 2022While the rate of duty is same under both the tariff Items, the method of computing them is different.Goods under ‘Tariff Item 8471 30 10’ attract the application of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, which valued the excisable goods on the basis of percentage of retail sale price. In contrast, a classification under ‘Tariff Item 8471 50 00’ invites valuation based on price mechanism under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 which would have effectively reduced the overall liability to pay the requisite duty.This difference in liability is the precise reason behind the present dispute regarding classification under the correct tariff item, the court order said.The top court noted that adjudicating authorities, especially the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), had extensively referred to online sources such as Wikipedia to support their conclusions.According to LiveLaw, 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.