Import prohibition extends to component parts with no independent use, and natural justice was found satisfied in customs proceedings.

A prohibition on importing an assembled article was held to extend to separately imported component parts that had no independent use except as parts of that article, because the licensing scheme and notification must be read together and cannot be defeated by doing indirectly what is prohibited directly. On the facts, the imported nuts and bolts were treated as components of the prohibited belt fastener, so contravention was sustained. The confiscation order was also upheld because the notice sufficiently disclosed the offence, the importer had an opportunity to respond, and the customs enquiry included a personal hearing; no breach of natural justice or procedural unfairness was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the import prohibition on an assembled article extended to identifiable component parts having no independent use other than as parts of that article; (ii) whether the confiscation order was vitiated by procedural unfairness or want of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the import prohibition on an assembled article extended to identifiable component parts having no independent use other than as parts of that article.

Analysis: The licensing scheme and the notification were read together. The prohibition could not be defeated by importing separately those parts which had no use except as components of the banned article. A construction that permits an importer to do indirectly what is prohibited directly was rejected. The customs finding that the imported nuts and bolts were in substance the components of the prohibited belt fastener was upheld.

Conclusion: The prohibition extended to the separately imported component parts, and the finding of contravention was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation order was vitiated by procedural unfairness or want of natural justice.

Analysis: The use of the washer import by a related concern was treated only as corroborative material to confirm the true nature of the imported goods. It was not the subject of a separate charge against the appellant. The notice sufficiently disclosed the alleged offence, the appellant had an opportunity to answer it, and the customs authorities had conducted an elaborate enquiry with personal hearing. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, could not sit in appeal over the customs authorities' appreciation of the evidence and conclusions on the merchandise imported.

Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice or procedural irregularity affecting the confiscation order.

Final Conclusion: The customs authorities' orders were upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A prohibition on importing a specified article includes separately imported component parts that have no independent use except as parts of that prohibited article, and such a finding will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent procedural illegality or breach of natural justice.

---