Import clearance cannot be denied where a valid registration certificate remains uncancelled and no statutory endorsement condition exists.

Clearance of imported insecticide could not be refused merely because the registration certificate lacked an endorsement of the source of import. In the absence of a statutory notification, instruction, cancellation, or a valid condition imposed under the Insecticides Act, 1968, an administrative letter to Customs could not displace a subsisting registration certificate issued under section 9. The certificate's validity had to be assessed on the date clearance was sought, and there was no evidence that the statutory procedure for variation, surrender, or cancellation under section 9(3C) had been followed. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether clearance of the imported insecticide could be denied and confiscation sustained merely because the registration certificate did not bear endorsement of the source of import, in the absence of a statutory cancellation or validly imposed condition requiring such endorsement.

Analysis: The imported item was covered by the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the appellants held a registration certificate issued under section 9. The only objection was that the certificate did not specify the approved source of import. The record did not show any general notification or statutory instruction under the Act making such endorsement a pre-condition for import, nor was there evidence that the appellants had been served with a notice requiring surrender of the certificate for variation of conditions under section 9(3C). A mere administrative letter to Customs, without compliance with the statutory mechanism for variation or cancellation, could not override an otherwise valid registration certificate. The validity of the certificate had to be judged on the date clearance was sought, and there was no proof that it had been cancelled or otherwise invalidated before that date.

Conclusion: The objection to clearance was not justified, and the confiscation and penalty could not be sustained.

---