Legal import ruled illegal: Confiscation upheld, petition denied under writ jurisdiction.

The court upheld the decision to confiscate the goods and rejected the petitioners' claim, emphasizing that the import was illegal due to the suspension and subsequent cancellation of the license. The court highlighted that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to validate an illegal import, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders dated 2nd January, 1986; 3rd June, 1986; and 23rd July, 1986 along with penalty imposition and refund claim of Rs. 2,50,000.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioners, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, sought to challenge certain orders and penalties related to the import of Mulberry Raw Silk under a duty exemption scheme. The petitioners operated under a letter of authority from M/s. Royal Fabrics, Bangalore, which was later suspended and canceled due to lapses. Despite the cancellation, the petitioners proceeded with importing the goods, which arrived after the license was canceled. The Additional Collector confiscated the goods, offering the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The petitioners appealed to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal (CEGAT), which confirmed the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine. The CEGAT held that the import was not valid as the license was canceled before the goods were shipped. A rectification application was filed to change the shipment date, leading to a difference of opinion among CEGAT members.

The matter was referred to the President of CEGAT, who concurred with one member's view, upholding the confiscation. The petitioners challenged these orders through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The main contention was that the goods were shipped before the license cancellation, making the import legal. However, the court found that the license was under suspension before cancellation, rendering the import illegal. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to make an illegal import legal. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the impugned orders and actions were legal and valid, requiring no interference.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decision to confiscate the goods and rejected the petitioners' claim, emphasizing that the import was illegal due to the suspension and subsequent cancellation of the license. The court highlighted that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to validate an illegal import, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---