TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether Diethylene Diamine (Technical) 60-68% was a canalised import falling within the prohibited drug entry and the policy provision treating active ingredients as part of the listed drug entry; (ii) whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on confiscation were justified.
Issue (i): whether Diethylene Diamine (Technical) 60-68% was a canalised import falling within the prohibited drug entry and the policy provision treating active ingredients as part of the listed drug entry
Analysis: The drug definition under the governing statute was treated as inclusive and wide enough to cover not only medicines but also substances used for diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, prevention, or preparation of medicines. The policy entry for Piperazine (Diethylene Diamine) Anhydrous/Hexahydrate was read with the policy clause stating that listed drug entries include salts, esters, complexes, and active ingredients. On that reading, the imported material was held to be an active ingredient for Piperazine and therefore within the canalised entry.
Conclusion: The import was held to be unauthorised and the confiscation was upheld.
Issue (ii): whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on confiscation were justified
Analysis: The prior practice plea was not established on the facts, and no basis was found to interfere with confiscation on that ground. At the same time, the materials were stated to be required for manufacture of essential drugs, which justified some relief in the quantum of the monetary consequences. The redemption fine was therefore reduced, and the penalty was considered unwarranted in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced and the penalty was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The confiscation and adverse import finding were sustained, but the monetary burden was moderated by reducing the redemption fine and deleting the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a policy entry for a canalised drug expressly includes active ingredients and the statutory definition of drug is inclusive, a substance used as an active ingredient for the listed drug falls within the canalised prohibition; penalty may nevertheless be denied where the circumstances do not justify it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
