Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported goods described as Tetracycline Urea Complex were a canalised item under Appendix 9 of the Import Policy A-M 1983, or a raw material permissible for import under Open General Licence under Appendix 10(1).
Analysis: The policy was construed as canalising only the drugs specified in Appendix 9, together with their salts, esters and active ingredients. On the evidence, the goods were found to be a no-bond inclusion complex made of tetracycline and urea, not a distinct chemical compound and not a raw material for manufacture of tetracycline hydrochloride. The Tribunal held that tetracycline was one of the canalised drugs and that the import was in substance of tetracycline with urea added as camouflage to avoid canalisation. The Tribunal also held that urea was not established to be a raw material for tetracycline hydrochloride and that the import could not be justified under OGL.
Conclusion: The imported goods were held to be banned and canalised under the policy, and the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance imported is, in commercial and functional reality, a canalised drug combined with an added innocuous material to evade the import policy, it remains within the canalised entry and cannot be imported under OGL merely because it is described as a complex or intermediate.