Customs adjudication and licence limits: dismantled parts counted as excess machines, and post-clearance penalty action remained valid.

Refusal to hear an unauthorised solicitor did not vitiate the customs adjudication where the petitioner's duly appearing representative was heard, so the natural justice challenge failed. Dismantled parts imported as accessories were treated according to their real commercial character and, because they were sufficient to make complete additional machines, the customs authority correctly treated them as excess machines imported beyond the licence; the value clause did not authorise extra machines. Clearance of the goods from customs control did not bar later penal action, so customs retained jurisdiction to proceed after clearance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal to hear the petitioner's solicitor vitiated the customs adjudication for breach of natural justice; (ii) whether the import of dismantled parts and accessories amounted to import of excess machines beyond the licence, notwithstanding the value limit in the licence; (iii) whether the customs authorities could proceed after the goods had been cleared from customs control.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to hear the petitioner's solicitor vitiated the customs adjudication for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The petitioner's representative who appeared at the hearing was heard, while the solicitor had filed no vakalatnama or other written authority showing that he was duly empowered to act for the petitioner before the customs authorities. A party represented by more than one person is not entitled, as a matter of natural justice, to insist that every one of its representatives must be separately heard. The refusal to hear an unauthorised solicitor did not invalidate the adjudication.

Conclusion: The contention of breach of natural justice failed and is against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the import of dismantled parts and accessories amounted to import of excess machines beyond the licence, notwithstanding the value limit in the licence.

Analysis: The licence permitted a fixed number of machines together with accessories, but accessories could not be stretched to mean complete extra machines imported in dismantled form. Component parts are not the machine itself, yet where imported parts are sufficient to make up complete machines, they cannot escape control merely because they are described as accessories or because the total invoice value remains within the monetary limit. The licence restricted both the number and the type of machines, and the value clause did not authorise import of additional machines.

Conclusion: The customs authority was right in treating the disputed goods as two excess machines imported without a valid licence, and the finding is against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the customs authorities could proceed after the goods had been cleared from customs control.

Analysis: Clearance of the goods through customs does not bar subsequent penal action where unlawful importation is later discovered. The customs authorities retain power to impose penalty even after the goods have passed out of customs control.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction after clearance failed and is against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty order failed on all grounds, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported in dismantled form will be treated according to their real commercial character and cannot be reclassified as mere accessories to evade a licence that limits the number of machines, while customs adjudicatory power to impose penalty is not lost merely because the goods have already been cleared.

---