Infringement of provisions of Article 14.

This appeal, filed against the judgment of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., raises a question as to the constitutional validity of section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act. That provision has been challenged as void before us on the ground that it contravenes Articles 14 and 20(3) of the Constitution. But the objection to the validity of the section under the first head, namely, that it denies equal protection of laws to persons similarly situate, was not taken before the learned Judge; nor even in the grounds of appeal before us. But in view of the importance of the matter and as the learned Advocate-General had no objection to the question being raised at this stage, we have allowed learned Counsel for the appellant to argue that point.

We shall now set out the circumstances which have necessitated the appellant to call to his aid the Fundamental Rights declared under Articles 14 and 20(3).

The appellant is a merchant at Madras trading under the name of Rainbow Trading Company, who for the purposes of his business, imports electrical goods from foreign countries.

Import trade is now regulated and controlled by the provisions of the Import and Export Control Act, 1947, the Rules under which make it obligatory on the importer to obtain a suitable licence for the purpose and to conform to the conditions prescribed therein. Section 3(2), of the Import and Export Control Act, provides that importation of goods contrary to the restrictions imposed thereunder would be deemed so done under the Sea Customs Act and attract the procedure and penalties under the latter. Section 5 makes the contravention of an order made or breach of the conditions of the licence punishable. The Rules framed under the Act prohibit the licensee from importing any goods except of the description contained in the licence. The control imposed by the Act is in respect of all articles. All importable articles are classified under various heads in what is commonly known as the Red Book or The Import Control Policy Book and separate licences are issued in respect of them with reference to their classification. The holder of a licence for the import of one article coming under a particular classification cannot import another which is outside the class for which the licence is issued. For example, the licence issued to the appellant, in the instant case, authorised him to import what are called decorative electric bulbs. Under that licence, he cannot import cycle dynamo bulbs or torch bulbs, although all of them might be of the same size, voltage, etc., as the latter two categories come under a different classification. If one, however, does it, it will be a case of smuggling. The classification of goods and the restriction on issue of licence to particular classes, or the limitation of import in any class or quantity of goods have been designed with a view to enable the State to regulate the import of foreign goods in the best interest of the country, its economic progress and industrial expansion. Unlicensed-import which will include a case of import of one type of goods under a licence permitting a different type, would obviously tend to bring about the very mischief which the Import and Export Control Act is intended to check.

To resume the narrative of facts, in July, 1957, a steamship S.S. Nachisan Mam discharged seventy-five packages of electric bulbs at the Madras Harbour. All the packages were marked Rainbow, Madras a part of the appellant’s trade name. The appellant, and eleven others filed bills of entry for clearing the goods through, the same clearing agent. The bills of entry disclosed the contents of the packages as decorative bulbs for which the appellant and the others held the licence. The former claimed twenty out of the seventy-five packages as belonging to him. Some of the twenty packages were examined by the Customs Authorities and it was found that they contained cycle dynamo bulbs which were different from decorative bulbs, the impor