Customs classification and apparent error review fail where prior clarification and licence limits do not support interference

Certiorari against a customs confiscation order failed where no error of law apparent on the face of the record was shown. The prior clarification for an earlier consignment could not apply absent proof that the present goods were the same as, or similar to, the earlier samples. The customs authority's finding that the goods were auto-bulbs was not shown to be plainly erroneous, and the alternative reasoning that the licence restriction limited import to 15% of face value also disclosed no apparent legal error. A belated natural justice objection was not entertained because it had not been raised earlier.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs order confiscating the goods under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record so as to justify certiorari, and whether the goods were wrongly classified as auto-bulbs under Entry 38A(e) rather than as other lamps under Entry 38A(f).

Analysis: The challenge rested on the asserted applicability of a prior clarification relating to an earlier consignment and on an alleged error in treating the goods as outside the licence. The Court held that the earlier clarification could not govern the present consignment in the absence of proof that the goods were the same as, or similar to, the earlier samples. The customs authority had found the goods to be auto-bulbs, and the record did not establish any basis for treating that finding as an apparent error. The alternative reasoning in the order, that even on the assumption of similarity the licence-related restriction in the entry would limit import to 15% of face value, also disclosed no error of law apparent on the face of the record. The belated plea of breach of natural justice was not entertained, having not been raised earlier.

Conclusion: No error of law apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the classification and confiscation order did not warrant interference.

---