Valid import licence prevails when a bogus letter of authority affects only clearance, not the legality of import.

Goods imported under a valid licence were not rendered unauthorised merely because the letter of authority used for clearance was bogus. The court reasoned that the letter of authority only empowered the importer to act for the licensee and clear the goods; once it was found invalid, the importer lost that clearance authority, but the import itself remained under the licence in the licensee's name. As the statutory basis for confiscation was absent, section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could not be invoked and the confiscation orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation under section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 could be sustained when the import was made under a valid licence and the letter of authority relied on by the importer was found to be bogus.

Analysis: The imports were made under the licence issued in the name of the licensee, and the import documents stood in the licensee's name. The letter of authority was only a document authorising the petitioner to act for the licensee and clear the goods; once that document was found to be bogus, the consequence was only that the petitioner had no right to clear the goods. That did not make the import itself one made under the letter of authority or on the petitioner's own account. Since the import was under a valid licence, the statutory basis for confiscation was absent.

Conclusion: Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 was inapplicable and the confiscation orders could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The impugned customs orders were set aside and the petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are imported under a valid licence, a bogus or invalid letter of authority used only for clearance does not convert the import into an unauthorized import so as to attract confiscation under the customs confiscation provision.

---