Arbitrary port restriction on imports held invalid for discrimination and lack of administrative justification.

A restriction allowing synthetic rags to be imported only through Bombay and Delhi ports was treated as discriminatory and arbitrary because it disadvantaged importers in other regions, and administrative inconvenience was not accepted as justification. The same import control condition and connected public notice were applied consistently with the prior view taken in the importer's own matter and the Calcutta High Court's approach. The restriction was held invalid, without jurisdiction, and ultra vires Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, as inconsistent with Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution. Consequential relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Validity of the restriction permitting import of synthetic rags only through specified ports, and the consequential entitlement to relief.

Analysis: The restriction limiting import to Bombay and Delhi ports was treated as discriminatory and arbitrary, since it placed importers in other regions at a disadvantage and the stated administrative difficulty was not accepted as a sufficient justification. The prior decision in the appellants' own matter, following the Calcutta High Court's view, was applied to the same import control condition and the connected public notice.

Conclusion: The restriction was held invalid and without jurisdiction, being inconsistent with Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The appeal was allowed and consequential relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A port restriction on imports that is arbitrary, discriminatory, and not justified by administrative necessity is ultra vires and unenforceable.

---