Canalised imports and Tribunal jurisdiction: OGL clearance for copra was barred, and detention certificate relief was outside appeal scope.

Import of copra under OGL No. 4 was inconsistent with the prevailing import policy because copra was a canalised item required to be imported only through the State Trading Corporation; Condition No. 13 preserved other operative import restrictions, so clearance under OGL was unavailable and confiscation and penalty were upheld. A detention certificate for wharf rent exemption could not be granted because the request fell outside the customs appeal and beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Customs Act. The ancillary relief was therefore not entertainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether import of copra under OGL No. 4 could be cleared when the item was canalised through the State Trading Corporation under the prevailing import policy and Condition No. 13 of the OGL was attracted; (ii) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a detention certificate for wharf rent exemption.

Issue (i): Whether import of copra under OGL No. 4 could be cleared when the item was canalised through the State Trading Corporation under the prevailing import policy and Condition No. 13 of the OGL was attracted.

Analysis: Condition No. 13 of OGL No. 4 made the OGL subject to any other prohibition or regulation affecting import that was in force at the time of import. The Tribunal held that this condition governed prohibitions or restrictions under the same import-control framework and could not be read down as confined only to laws wholly outside that regime. Since copra was an undisputed canalised item under the relevant policy year and could be imported only through the canalising agency, the replacement-import claim under OGL No. 4 was inconsistent with the prevailing restriction.

Conclusion: The import was not entitled to clearance under OGL No. 4, and the confiscation and penalty were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to grant a detention certificate for wharf rent exemption.

Analysis: The request for a detention certificate concerned relief beyond the impugned customs order and was not a matter decided under the Customs Act in the appeal before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant the requested certificate.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits and the ancillary request for wharf-rent relief also could not be entertained.

---