Open General Licence classification prevails where competent licensing clarification places the imported compound within the eligible entry.

Acetyl sulphanyl chloride and N-acetyl sulphanilyl chloride were treated as the same compound, and the competent licensing clarification placed the item within Appendix 6, List 8, Part I, so the import fell under Open General Licence for the relevant Import and Export Policy period. That specific OGL classification prevailed over the contrary restricted-item view taken by customs, making confiscation and fine unsustainable. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy was not accepted as a bar because the classification issue had already been authoritatively settled on the licensing side. The customs order was quashed and release of the goods was directed without insistence on the confiscatory fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Acetyl sulphanyl Chloride and N-Acetyl sulphanilyl Chloride were the same compound and, if so, whether the import was covered by Open General Licence under the Import and Export Policy for April, 1985 to March, 1988. (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): Whether Acetyl sulphanyl Chloride and N-Acetyl sulphanilyl Chloride were the same compound and, if so, whether the import was covered by Open General Licence under the Import and Export Policy for April, 1985 to March, 1988.

Analysis: The policy treated specific entries in Appendix 6 as eligible for Open General Licence, while Appendix 3 contained restricted items. The clarification issued by the Director General of Technical Development stated that Acetyl Sulphonyl Chloride and N-Acetyl sulphonilyl Chloride were only different nomenclatures of the same compound and that the item was covered by Appendix 6, List 8, Part I. That clarification was treated as binding and prevailed over the contrary technical opinion relied on by the customs authorities. On that basis, the specific OGL entry was held to govern the import.

Conclusion: The import was held to be valid under Open General Licence and the confiscation and fine were unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an appeal was considered, but the Court found that the authoritative clarification from the licensing side had already settled the classification issue against the customs view. In those circumstances, the objection based on alternate remedy was not accepted.

Conclusion: The petition was not dismissed for want of alternate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The customs order was quashed and the respondents were directed to release the goods without insisting on the confiscatory fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a policy contains a specific OGL entry and the competent licensing authority clarifies that the imported goods fall within that entry, the specific OGL classification prevails over a contrary restricted-list description, and customs cannot sustain confiscation on the opposite interpretation.

---