Absolute import ban on staple pins prevails over circulars, practice claims, and alternative licence arguments.

Staple pins were treated as falling within the absolute banned import list, and the attempted distinction between stationery and industrial use was rejected because the policy did not grant any specific permission for such goods. A clarificatory circular and an asserted customs practice could not override the clear prohibition, especially where the alleged practice rested on a single clearance. An alternative licence could not be used to regularise an import of goods that remained banned. On redemption fine, section 125(1) was read as requiring reference to the market price of goods of like kind and quality, so the challenge to excessiveness failed for want of contrary market evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether staple pins were freely importable as industrial packing material or were covered by the absolute ban in the import policy; (ii) Whether a circular or an asserted customs practice could override the ban and permit clearance; (iii) Whether the alternative licence tendered could be utilised to regularise the import; and (iv) Whether the redemption fine was beyond the limit prescribed by section 125(1) of the Customs Act.

Issue (i): Whether staple pins were freely importable as industrial packing material or were covered by the absolute ban in the import policy.

Analysis: The policy book treated staple pins as banned without distinguishing between stationery use and industrial use. The relevant appendices placed staple pins in the banned lists, and the scheme of Appendix 17 showed that items in the absolute banned list could not be imported against REP licences except where specifically permitted. No such specific permission for staple pins was shown. The distinction attempted between stationery and industrial staple pins was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The import of staple pins was held to be absolutely banned and not covered by the licence relied upon.

Issue (ii): Whether a circular or an asserted customs practice could override the ban and permit clearance.

Analysis: The circular relied on merely clarified that stationery staples were covered by the ban and did not extend any permission to other kinds of staples. The alleged practice rested on a single clearance, which was insufficient to establish any binding or consistent practice, especially when contrasted with other penal action taken in a similar matter. A stray clearance could not displace the clear policy prohibition.

Conclusion: Neither the circular nor the alleged practice entitled the appellants to clearance of the goods.

Issue (iii): Whether the alternative licence tendered could be utilised to regularise the import.

Analysis: The description in the alternative licence covered pins in the nature of trimmings and embellishments, not staple pins falling within the banned category. Since staple pins were absolutely banned, they could not be read into the licence by implication or by reference to a packing-material heading that was not shown to cover them. The requested debit against that licence was therefore impermissible.

Conclusion: The alternative licence could not be accepted to validate the import.

Issue (iv): Whether the redemption fine was beyond the limit prescribed by section 125(1) of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The proviso to section 125(1) was construed to require reference to the market price of goods of like kind and quality at the relevant time, not merely the imported goods as valued by the importer. As no material was placed on the market price of like goods, the challenge to the fine as ultra vires could not succeed.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was not shown to be illegal or excessive under section 125(1) of the Customs Act.

Final Conclusion: The policy prohibition against staple pins was upheld, the alternative licence was rejected, and the challenge to the redemption fine failed, leaving the adjudication against the importer intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import policy places goods in an absolute banned list, neither a general packing-material licence, a single instance of clearance, nor a clarificatory circular limited to another category of goods can override the prohibition; redemption fine under section 125(1) must be tested by reference to the market price of goods of like kind and quality.

---