Reasonable customs classification and penalty discretion do not, by themselves, establish error apparent or Article 14 discrimination.

Customs classification under the Import Policy Book may stand where the relevant entries reasonably admit the authority's view; on the facts discussed, black insulating tape could reasonably be treated as adhesive tape, so no clear misclassification or error of law apparent on the face of the record was shown for certiorari. A separate Article 14 complaint based on other importers receiving only warnings also failed, because the classification applied was the same and the difference lay only in penalty after breach was found; variation in punishment alone does not establish hostile discrimination in quasi-judicial proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs Collector's classification of the imported goods as "adhesive tape" amounted to a clear misclassification or an error of law apparent on the face of the record so as to justify certiorari; (ii) Whether the imposition of a fine on the petitioner, when other importers were warned, amounted to discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs Collector's classification of the imported goods as "adhesive tape" amounted to a clear misclassification or an error of law apparent on the face of the record so as to justify certiorari.

Analysis: The classification depended on the construction of the relevant entries in the Import Policy Book, under which adhesive tapes and black insulating tapes both fell within the broader entry relating to electric installations. The goods imported by the petitioner were black insulating tape in colour and adhesive in character, and the materials before the Court did not show that the entry "black insulating tapes" necessarily excluded adhesive tapes. There was, therefore, material on which the Customs Collector could reasonably conclude that the goods fell under the sub-head "adhesive tape". In these circumstances, the Court was unable to hold that the order involved a clear case of misclassification or an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

Conclusion: The classification was not shown to be a clear misclassification, and no ground was made out for certiorari on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the imposition of a fine on the petitioner, when other importers were warned, amounted to discrimination in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The complaint of discrimination rested only on the fact that two other importers were permitted to clear similar goods with warning, whereas the petitioner was penalised. The Court held that the classification adopted by the Customs authorities was the same in all cases, and the difference complained of related only to the quantum of penalty after breach of the law had been found. In quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority having jurisdiction to punish has discretion in the matter of penalty, and an apparent difference in punishment, without more, does not establish hostile discrimination.

Conclusion: No violation of Article 14 was established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Customs order failed on both the classification and discrimination grounds, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant tariff or policy entry reasonably admits the classification adopted by the authority, the decision is not vulnerable as an error apparent on the face of the record, and a mere variation in penalty between similarly placed cases does not by itself establish a violation of Article 14.

---