Actual User import restriction and customs confiscation remain valid despite misdescription of power and no loss of appeal remedy.

An import declaration claiming Actual User status was false where the industrial licence had already ceased to permit manufacture using the imported raw material, so continued import and use of isoxamine was unauthorised and liable to confiscation. The Collector of Customs could validly order confiscation and penalty because he had substantive jurisdiction under the Customs Act to act after notice and hearing; an incorrect reference to revisional power was only a misdescription and did not invalidate the order. The alleged loss of the statutory appeal right was also rejected because the order itself stated that an appeal lay and the appellant was not misled.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could be treated as an Actual User entitled to import isoxamine under the import policy notwithstanding the industrial licence conditions restricting use of imported material after two years; (ii) Whether the Collector of Customs could validly order confiscation and impose penalty while exercising revisional power under Section 130(2) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) Whether the impugned order deprived the appellant of the statutory right of appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant could be treated as an Actual User entitled to import isoxamine under the import policy notwithstanding the industrial licence conditions restricting use of imported material after two years.

Analysis: The import policy required an Actual User to furnish a declaration that its registration had not been cancelled, withdrawn, or otherwise made inoperative, and the expression Actual User (Industrial) contemplated use of the imported goods in the manufacturing process within the authorised premises. The industrial licence itself had ceased to permit manufacture of sulphamethoxazole with imported isoxamine after the stipulated period. A declaration asserting continued entitlement to use imported material for manufacture was therefore false, and the import could not be treated as lawful merely because the goods were covered by an OGL.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to import or use the goods as an Actual User after the expiry of the licence period, and the import was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector of Customs could validly order confiscation and impose penalty while exercising revisional power under Section 130(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Collector had jurisdiction under Sections 122 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to confiscate goods and impose penalty after notice and hearing. Although the order referred to the revisional provision, the Collector had in substance exercised a power that was otherwise available to him, and any misdescription of the source of power was only an irregularity not affecting validity. The reliance on a decision dealing with the absence of penalty power in assessment proceedings was held inapposite.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were upheld, and the order was not vitiated by the reference to revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned order deprived the appellant of the statutory right of appeal.

Analysis: The order itself stated that an appeal lay to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The appellant was not misled, and it chose not to avail the appellate remedy. The mere fact that the Collector acted under an erroneous label did not extinguish the appeal right otherwise available against confiscation and penalty imposed in the exercise of original jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The complaint that the appellant was deprived of an appeal right was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The import was held to be unauthorised, the confiscation and penalty were sustained, and no jurisdictional or appellate infirmity was found warranting interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing import policy and the industrial licence together prohibit continued use of imported raw material, a declaration asserting continued entitlement to use such material is false and the import is liable to confiscation; a mere misdescription of the statutory source of power does not invalidate an otherwise competent confiscation and penalty order.

---