Import licence breach and confiscation: end use affects only redemption fine, not the legality of confiscation.

Stainless steel sheets imported in 22 gauge fell outside the express gauge restriction in the import licence, so the import was unauthorised and the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The licensing authority was competent to impose such gauge limits under the Import Control Order, 1955. The importer's stated end use did not affect the legality of confiscation, though it could be considered only in determining the quantum of redemption fine under Section 125. The confiscation order was therefore upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether stainless steel sheets imported in 22 gauge, contrary to the gauge restriction in the import licence, were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, and whether the stated end use of the goods could defeat the confiscation order.

Analysis: The import licence permitted only prime stainless steel sheets, strips and circles other than 21 to 25 gauge. The imported goods were 22 gauge sheets and were therefore outside the licence. The licensing authority was competent under the Import Control Order, 1955 to impose gauge restrictions in the licence. Once the goods were imported in violation of the licence conditions, they were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The end use of the goods was not a relevant consideration for the validity of confiscation, though it could be considered while fixing redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was valid and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because the import was unauthorised under the licence and no error of law was shown in the impugned orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported in breach of express licence restrictions are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, and the intended end use of the goods is relevant, if at all, only to the quantum of redemption fine, not to the legality of confiscation itself.

---