Port restriction for drug imports prevails over customs notification, sustaining confiscation and penalty, with reduced redemption fine.

A customs notification appointing a port for import does not override a separate statutory port restriction under Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Import of veterinary drugs through a port not covered by that rule was treated as a breach distinct from the Customs Act scheme, making confiscation and penal consequences legally sustainable. The authorities nevertheless adopted a lenient view on the importer's conduct, so only the quantum of redemption fine warranted limited interference. The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were upheld in principle, subject to reduction of the redemption fine on leniency grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether import of veterinary drugs through Tuticorin Port, though permitted by a customs notification, violated the port restriction under Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 so as to justify confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The customs notification appointing a port for import of goods does not override restrictions imposed under another enactment having a different object. Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 imposes a separate statutory restriction on the import of drugs through specified ports, and breach of that restriction is distinct from the mischief covered by Section 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the import was made through a port not covered by Rule 43A, confiscation and penal consequences were legally sustainable. At the same time, the conduct was treated leniently by the authorities, warranting only limited interference on the quantum of redemption fine.

Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were upheld in principle, but the redemption fine was reduced on the ground of leniency.

---