Customs clearance cannot be overridden by import-control authorities; contrary administrative action is without jurisdiction.

An import-control authority cannot reopen or override an unconditional customs clearance, because the customs adjudication is final within the customs framework and cannot be reviewed indirectly through import-control powers. The document also notes that beef tallow had become a canalised item under the prevailing import policy, so import against REP licences was unauthorised as a matter of policy. Even so, that policy breach did not justify contrary administrative action once Customs had already cleared the goods unconditionally. The stated ratio is that executive import-control action is without jurisdiction where it seeks to contradict a final customs clearance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order could, under clause 8(1)(g), reopen and take contrary action where the Customs authorities had already cleared the imported goods unconditionally; (ii) whether the import of beef tallow against REP licences was unauthorised under the prevailing import policy and could sustain the impugned action.

Issue (i): Whether the authorities under the Imports (Control) Order could, under clause 8(1)(g), reopen and take contrary action where the Customs authorities had already cleared the imported goods unconditionally.

Analysis: The Customs Act vested the Collector with authority to adjudge confiscation and penalty for imports contrary to law, and the statutory appellate structure gave finality to that determination within the customs hierarchy. Once the goods were cleared unconditionally, the clearance necessarily implied that no violation of the import-control law was recorded by the Customs authorities. The Import Control authorities were held to have no independent power to sit in review over that statutory decision. The import policy and handbook provisions could not enlarge executive power so as to override a customs adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned action under clause 8(1)(g) was without jurisdiction to the extent it sought to override the unconditional customs clearance, and the finding of the import-control authority could not be sustained against the petitioners on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the import of beef tallow against REP licences was unauthorised under the prevailing import policy and could sustain the impugned action.

Analysis: Beef tallow of animal origin had ceased to be an OGL item and had been canalised through the State Trading Corporation. Under the later import-export policy, REP licences held by export houses ceased to remain valid for import of items that had become canalised. On that footing, the import of beef tallow at Calcutta was contrary to the then operative policy and, as a matter of policy alone, was unauthorised.

Conclusion: The import was unauthorised under the import policy, but that circumstance did not justify the impugned order once the goods had already been unconditionally cleared by the Customs authorities.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned order of debarment was quashed, with parties left to bear their own costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An executive authority under import-control law cannot review or override an unconditional customs adjudication, and once customs clearance has been granted, contrary administrative action on the same import is without jurisdiction.

---