Commercially pure import licence limits upheld as non-conforming Dicofol goods were held liable to confiscation

An authorised clearing agent may sign and file a Customs revision petition on behalf of an importer where authority is admitted, so maintainability cannot be challenged on signing alone. Imported Dicofol Technical 78% was found to have purity below the level required for "commercially pure form"; because the import policy and licence permitted only commercially pure Dicofol for actual users, the goods were not covered by the licence. The import was therefore held contrary to the import policy, and confiscation with redemption fine was sustained as reasonable and lenient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition signed by the clearing agents was properly signed and maintainable; (ii) whether the import of Dicofol Technical 78% was covered by the import licence and fell within the expression "commercially pure form".

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition signed by the clearing agents was properly signed and maintainable.

Analysis: The importer's partner admitted in court that the clearing agents had been authorised to act on behalf of the firm. In the light of this admission and the position that an act required by the Customs Act may be done through an authorised agent, the objection to signing could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The revision petition was properly signed and was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the import of Dicofol Technical 78% was covered by the import licence and fell within the expression "commercially pure form".

Analysis: The imported goods were tested and found to have purity below the minimum level required for commercially pure Dicofol. The licence and import policy permitted import only of Dicofol in commercially pure form for actual users. On the material before it, the goods therefore did not answer that description and were not covered by the import licence. The redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation was also found to be reasonable and lenient.

Conclusion: The import was in contravention of the import policy and the confiscation with redemption fine was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, the lower authorities' order was affirmed, and the confiscation and redemption fine were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods do not satisfy the policy requirement of being in commercially pure form, they are not covered by the relevant import licence and are liable to confiscation under the Customs law.

---