Import control breach and unauthorised importation can justify confiscation under customs law despite procedural objections.

Import of scheduled goods by a person not authorised under the licence, and in breach of the licence conditions incorporated into the Import Trade Control Order, constitutes import contrary to statutory restrictions and attracts confiscation under customs law. Refusal to allow cross-examination of a witness did not invalidate the confiscation where the statement had been supplied and no decisive disputed fact depended on such testing. A passing reference to alleged illegal activities of a third party also did not vitiate the order because the confiscation rested on the illegality of the import itself and no prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether import of the goods by a person not authorised by the import licence, and clearance in breach of the licence conditions and Import Trade Control Order, attracted confiscation under the Sea Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947; (ii) Whether refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness whose statement was supplied to the petitioners vitiated the confiscation order; (iii) Whether reference in the order to alleged illegal activities of a third party rendered the order invalid.

Issue (i): Whether import of the goods by a person not authorised by the import licence, and clearance in breach of the licence conditions and Import Trade Control Order, attracted confiscation under the Sea Customs Act and the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

Analysis: Clause 3 of the Import Trade Control Order prohibited import of scheduled goods except in accordance with a licence. Clause 5 made the specified licence conditions part of the order itself. The licence authorised only the named firm to import the goods, and the importer in fact was not that firm and had no authority under the licence. Import in breach of the licence and its deemed conditions therefore amounted to import contrary to the statutory restrictions, bringing the case within the confiscatory provision of the Sea Customs Act.

Conclusion: The confiscation was valid and the contention against jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal to permit cross-examination of a witness whose statement was supplied to the petitioners vitiated the confiscation order.

Analysis: The witness statement was furnished, and no disputed factual finding in the impugned order depended on material requiring cross-examination for its testing. The complaint was therefore treated as merely technical and not affecting the validity of the order.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether reference in the order to alleged illegal activities of a third party rendered the order invalid.

Analysis: The substantive basis of the confiscation was the undisputed illegality of the import and breach of the licence regime. The reference to the third party's activities did not form the foundation of the decision, and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The order was not invalid on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The import was held to be in breach of the statutory import control regime, and the confiscation order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Import of scheduled goods by a person not authorised by the licence, or in breach of the licence conditions deemed to be part of the import control order, constitutes import contrary to statutory restrictions and attracts confiscation under the customs law.

---