Import permit compliance under insecticide law sustained confiscation for restricted Boric Acid, but not for non-insecticidal inputs.

Boric Acid imported for a restricted use was held confiscable under the Customs Act, 1962 because no prescribed import permit from the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee was produced, and the import was not shown to fall within any exempt non-insecticidal category. Nickel Chloride and Copper Sulphate, however, were treated as goods intended for the EOU's manufacturing process rather than insecticidal use, so the basis for their confiscation was not established. The confiscation of those items and the consequential penalty were set aside, and penalty was remanded for fresh consideration in light of the limited liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Boric Acid imported for use in the EOU's manufacturing process required an import permit from the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee and was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Whether Nickel Chloride and Copper Sulphate were liable to confiscation and whether the penalty imposed on the importer could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether Boric Acid imported for use in the EOU's manufacturing process required an import permit from the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee and was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Import of insecticides is regulated by the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the departmental clarification and the cited notification indicated that Boric Acid could be imported only on production of the prescribed import permit where the import was not shown to fall within the exempted non-insecticidal category. The record disclosed no import permit from the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee for the Boric Acid consignment. On that basis, the import was treated as contrary to the statutory restriction and attracted confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The confiscation of Boric Acid was sustained and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Nickel Chloride and Copper Sulphate were liable to confiscation and whether the penalty imposed on the importer could be sustained.

Analysis: Section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 excludes substances covered by the Schedule when they are intended for purposes other than insecticidal use. The goods other than Boric Acid were found to be imported for use in the EOU's manufacture of automobile wheels, and the basis for requiring a registration certificate or import permit for those items was not established. Since only Boric Acid was shown to be liable to confiscation, the confiscation of the remaining goods and the penalty based on their inclusion could not stand. The matter of penalty required reconsideration in the light of the restricted liability.

Conclusion: The confiscation of Nickel Chloride and Copper Sulphate and the penalty were set aside, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The import was held partially liable to restriction, with Boric Acid remaining confiscable, while the other goods and the penalty were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968 are not liable to the import restrictions for insecticides when they are demonstrably intended for non-insecticidal use, but where the prescribed import permit is absent for a restricted item, confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 is justified.

---