Actual-user import through regular trade channel cannot be treated as smuggling without factual basis or notified goods status.

Imported goods obtained through a regular commercial order, paid for by demand draft, and brought in for actual-user professional use were not treated as smuggled goods. The temporary use of an older model did not, on these facts, convert the import into smuggling. As the ultrasound scanner was not notified and the factual basis for alleging smuggling was absent, proceedings under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Customs Act's confiscatory provisions were unsustainable. The customs action was therefore held illegal and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported ultrasound scanner was liable to confiscation and penalty as smuggled goods, and whether the provisions invoked under the import control law and the Customs Act could be applied on the facts.

Analysis: The import was made pursuant to an order placed with the foreign supplier, payment was made by demand draft, and the goods moved through the regular commercial channel. The machine was intended for the appellant's professional use as an actual user, and the temporary use of an older model did not convert the import into smuggling. In these circumstances, the proceedings based on Sections 3 and 4A of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the confiscatory provisions of the Customs Act were found to be unsustainable, particularly when the goods were not notified and the factual basis for alleging smuggling was absent.

Conclusion: The customs action was held to be illegal and unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

---