1962 (3) TMI 130 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation of Camphor B.P. under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act.
2. Validity and interpretation of the import license under the Import Trade Control Schedule.
3. Applicability of the Drugs Act, 1940 and the Drugs Rules, 1945.
4. Jurisdiction and exercise of power by the Assistant Collector of Customs.
5. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confiscation of Camphor B.P. under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act:
The appellant's consignment of Camphor B.P. was confiscated by the Assistant Collector of Customs under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. The confiscation was based on the grounds that the appellant imported the consignment without a proper license, thereby contravening Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act read with Sections 3(2) and (4) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the Imports (Control) Order, 1955.

2. Validity and interpretation of the import license under the Import Trade Control Schedule:
The appellant held a license authorizing the importation of "Terpene and its derivatives excluding preparations thereof" under serial Nos. 87 and 109 of Part IV of the Import Trade Control Schedule. However, Camphor was separately listed under serial No. 131, for which the licensing policy was 'nil,' meaning its importation was completely forbidden. The appellant argued that Camphor B.P., being a derivative of Terpene, was covered under his license. The court, however, concluded that since Camphor was specifically listed and banned under serial No. 131, it could not be imported under the general category of Terpene derivatives.

3. Applicability of the Drugs Act, 1940 and the Drugs Rules, 1945:
The court examined the provisions of the Drugs Act, 1940, and the Drugs Rules, 1945, to determine whether Camphor B.P. could be imported under a drug license. Although Camphor B.P. is a recognized drug, the court held that the specific ban on Camphor under the Import Trade Control Schedule took precedence. The court emphasized that the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, and the relevant schedule and appendices had statutory effect and must be adhered to.

4. Jurisdiction and exercise of power by the Assistant Collector of Customs:
The Assistant Collector of Customs acted within his jurisdiction in confiscating the consignment. The appellant was given a personal hearing, and the decision was based on the material before the Assistant Collector. The court found no violation of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction in the actions of the Assistant Collector.

5. Scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The court reiterated the principles governing the issuance of a writ of certiorari, emphasizing that it is not a substitute for an appeal. The court will not review findings of fact or reappraise evidence unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error in this case. The appellant's failure to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal or revision was noted, but it did not bar relief under Article 226. However, the court held that the appellant's contentions did not warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the confiscation of the consignment of Camphor B.P. There was no order as to costs, and the operation of the order was stayed for ten days.