Import control breach over poppy seeds sustained confiscation and penalty where no Open General Licence coverage existed.

Poppy seeds imported as Suffed Sarh were not covered by the specific Open General Licence entry for crude drugs under the Import Policy, and a claimed use as raw material for Ayurvedic or Unani medicine did not create eligibility. The import therefore remained unauthorised, and confiscation and penalty were justified under customs law. A plea of bona fide belief failed because the importer had previously faced adverse action for the same commodity, and the suggested long-standing practice was unsupported. The breach was also not merely administrative, as it arose under statutory import control instruments and attracted customs consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether poppy seeds imported as Suffed Sarh were eligible for clearance under Open General Licence as crude drugs under the relevant Import Policy; (ii) whether the import, made without a valid licence, justified confiscation and penalty; and (iii) whether the violation of the import control regime could be treated as merely administrative and therefore not attract customs consequences.

Issue (i): whether poppy seeds imported as Suffed Sarh were eligible for clearance under Open General Licence as crude drugs under the relevant Import Policy.

Analysis: The relevant policy did not specifically place Suffed Sarh in the list of items permitted to be imported as crude drugs under Open General Licence. The earlier Tribunal decision on poppy seeds had already held that such goods were consumer goods and not eligible for Open General Licence clearance. The argument that the goods could be treated as raw material for Ayurvedic or Unani medicine did not alter the position, because eligibility had to be found within the specific policy entry permitting import.

Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for clearance under Open General Licence, and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the import, made without a valid licence, justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The import was in breach of the import control restrictions and therefore attracted confiscation under the customs law. The plea of bona fide belief was rejected because the appellant had earlier imported the same item and had already suffered confiscation and penalty in respect of that import. The claim of a long-standing practice of allowing such imports was also not supported by the record.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were justified, and the contention was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the violation of the import control regime could be treated as merely administrative and therefore not attract customs consequences.

Analysis: The governing restriction was not a mere policy statement; it operated through statutory instruments made under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and the Customs Act, 1962. The cited authorities on non-statutory public notices did not apply because the present import was contrary to a statutory import control order and the customs confiscation provision.

Conclusion: The violation attracted customs consequences, and the contention was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The import was held to be unauthorised under the applicable import control regime, and the confiscation and penalty were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import is not covered by the specific Open General Licence entry and is contrary to a statutory import control order, the goods are liable to confiscation and penalty under customs law, and a plea of bona fide belief cannot succeed after an earlier adverse decision on the same commodity.

---