1996 (2) TMI 462 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of consignment of ball bearings.
2. Refund of fine and personal penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Validity of import license and classification of ball bearings as banned or unstandard.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of consignment of ball bearings:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated June 18, 1977, passed by the Special Secretary to the Government of India, which upheld the confiscation of 48 cases of ball bearings. The Customs authorities had rejected the clearance on the grounds that the dimensions of the imported ball bearings (25x62x17 mm) did not match those declared in the invoice and Bill of Entry (24x61x16 mm). The authorities issued a show cause notice under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner responded, denying the discrepancy and claiming the bearings were unstandard and not banned. However, the Collector of Customs concluded that the imported bearings were of banned sizes, materially different from the declared dimensions, and ordered confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, allowing redemption on payment of a fine.

2. Refund of fine and personal penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner also sought a refund of the fine of Rs. 44,800/- paid for redeeming the confiscated goods and a personal penalty of Rs. 12,800/- imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The Collector of Customs had imposed these penalties, which were upheld by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and the Government of India, Department of Revenue and Banking. The authorities concluded that the goods were of a banned category as per the Import Trade Control Policy and confirmed the penalties.

3. Validity of import license and classification of ball bearings as banned or unstandard:
The petitioner argued that the imported ball bearings were unstandard and not of the banned size 25x62x17 mm, as per the relevant Import Trade Control Policy. The petitioner cited test reports and a letter from the Bulgarian Embassy to support their claim. However, the Customs authorities and subsequent appellate bodies, including the Central Board of Excise & Customs and the Government of India, found that the ball bearings were either of the banned size or very close to it. The authorities relied on the test results and the relevant Import Trade Control Policy, which did not permit the import of ball bearings of the size mentioned in Appendix 14(1)(a).

Court's Conclusion:
The court considered the submissions and found that the dimensions of the ball bearings on actual inspection were 25x62x17 mm or close to it, contrary to the declared dimensions. The court noted that the petitioner's claim of importing unstandard bearings was not supported by the Import Trade Control Policy, which only considered the size of the bearings for determining the ban. The court emphasized that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution does not allow it to act as an appellate body over administrative decisions but to examine the decision-making process. The court found no arbitrariness, irrationality, or patent illegality in the authorities' decisions.

Judgment:
The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. There was no order as to costs.