Specific import ban overrides general licence description, and certiorari will not reopen schedule construction absent patent error.

Camphor B.P. was held outside the import licence for drugs and medicines because the import schedule contained a specific, express ban on Camphor under a separate entry, and a specific prohibition prevailed over the general description covering drugs and medicines. The customs confiscation was also not amenable to certiorari: the authority acted within jurisdiction, gave notice and personal hearing, and the dispute involved construction of the schedule and licence rather than any patent error on the face of the record. The existence of statutory appeal and revision remedies further limited writ interference. The confiscation was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Camphor B.P. was covered by the import licence for drugs and medicines under the relevant import control schedule, or stood excluded by the specific ban on Camphor. (ii) Whether the confiscation order could be interfered with in certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Issue (i): Whether Camphor B.P. was covered by the import licence for drugs and medicines under the relevant import control schedule, or stood excluded by the specific ban on Camphor.

Analysis: The licence had to be read with the schedule and appendix forming part of the import control regime. Although the general entry for drugs and medicines covered terpene and its derivatives, Camphor was separately and specifically dealt with under a distinct serial number with a total ban for established importers. A specific prohibition prevails over a general description. The fact that Camphor B.P. is a drug did not displace the express ban on Camphor in any form or variety.

Conclusion: The consignments of Camphor B.P. were not covered by the licence and the prohibition applied against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation order could be interfered with in certiorari on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The customs authority acted within jurisdiction, issued notice, and afforded a personal hearing. The dispute turned on construction of the import schedule and licence, which did not disclose any patent error on the face of the record. Such a question required detailed examination of the schedule and could not be re-opened in certiorari as if on appeal. The existence of a statutory appeal and revision remedy also reinforced the limited scope of writ interference.

Conclusion: No ground for certiorari was made out and the writ challenge failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld and the appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a commodity is specifically and expressly prohibited by a separate entry in the import schedule, that specific ban overrides a general licensing description, and such a determination does not furnish an error apparent on the face of the record for certiorari.

---