Judgment :- The Petitioner held an import quota, current also for the period January to June, 1957. Between July and September, 1957, he was permitted to convert that quota to enable him to import "electrical insulations excluding face value restricted items'' up to the value of Rs. 1, 000. To understand what was meant by face value restricted items, reference has to be made to the entries in the "Remarks" column against Item 38 of Section II of the Schedule to the Policy Book. Sub-paragraph 3 in the "Remarks" column against Item 38 in section II ran: "Not more than 71/2% of the face value of quota licences or 500, whichever is higher, can be utilised for the import of adhesive tapes". Thus, the restriction referred to in the import licence granted to the petitioner referred to adhesive tapes, which, under the items of the licence granted to him, he was not entitled to import at all. 2.The petitioner ordered goods of the value of Rs. 998, which he described as "Black insulating tape". That was how apparently the exporter also described it. When the goods arrived, the Customs Authorities were of the view, that the goods were "Adhesive tape", to which the restriction referred to above applied, and that did not authorise him to import those goods. The goods, it should be remembered, arrived in December, 1957, and the bill of entry was filed with the Collector on 15-12-1957. As the Customs Authorities were of the view, that the goods were correctly classifiable under the head "Adhesive Tape", a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be punished for importing the goods in contravention of section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act. After an enquiry, the Collector, by his order, dated 10-3-1958 held that the import of the goods in question was in contravention of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, and, the petitioner was allowed option of clearing the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 1, 000. The Collector was of the view that the proper classification of the imported goods was "Adhesive Tape". 3.The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order of the Collector dated 10-3-1958. 1, 000. The Collector was of the view that the proper classification of the imported goods was "Adhesive Tape". 3.The petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order of the Collector dated 10-3-1958. 4.A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of this application, because the petitioner had an alternative remedy, - an appeal to the departmental authorities under the Sea Customs Act. I do not, however, propose to rest my decision in this case on this feature of the case. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the validity of the order of the Collector on the following grounds: (1) the classification of the goods by the Collector of Customs constituted an error of law apparent on the face of the record; (2) the usage of the trade justified only the classification of the goods as "Black Insulating Tape" and not as "Adhesive Tape", and therefore the Collector had no jurisdiction to treat these goods as "Adhesive Tape"; and (3) the order of the Collector violated Article 14 of the Constitution, because other importers were permitted to clear similar goods without payment of a fine. 6.To appreciate the first of the contentions, reference will have to be made to the entries at page 51 of the Index to the Policy Book in force between January and June, 1957. The relevant portion of Entry 38 in section II was "Electric Installations". What that item meant was clarified in the Index at page 51. The sub-heads in the Index included in Entry 38 of Section II were adhesive tapes, black insulating tapes and impregnated tapes, among others. There was also a separate entry for the sub-heads, "Varnished cambric tubing" and "yellow empire cloth and tapes". It was common ground that up to December, 1957, as far as Madras Port was concerned the goods of the variety imported by the petitioner were treated by those authorities as falling under the classification "Black insulating tape", while they were classified as "adhesive tape" by the Customs Authorities in Bombay and Calcutta. In December, 1957, the Customs Authorities at Madras decided to fall in line with the Bombay and Calcutta Customs Authorities and to classify these goods correctly as adhesive tape, falling, however, within the scope of Entry 38 of section II. In December, 1957, the Customs Authorities at Madras decided to fall in line with the Bombay and Calcutta Customs Authorities and to classify these goods correctly as adhesive tape, falling, however, within the scope of Entry 38 of section II. If the goods were "adhesive tape", then, the restriction applied, and obviously, the petitioners import licence did not authorise him to import goods, the import of which had been restricted. The question is, was the classification of the goods imported by the petitioner, effected by the order in March, 1958, an error of law apparent on the face of the record, justifying the issue of a writ of certiorari? It does not even appear to be a clear case of misclassification. That the goods imported by the petitioner could be described as "black insulating tape" did not admit of any doubt. That they were adhesive in quality was not in issue either. The question, therefore, arose, under which head should the goods be classified, - adhesive tapes or black insulating tapes. I am unable to find anything either in Entry 38 or in the Index or anywhere else in the policy book to rule out the interpretation of the term "Black insulating tapes" to cover only black insulating tapes other than adhesive tapes. The entry "Adhesive Tapes" in the Index has no reference to colour. Obviously, it has reference to insulation, because it is one of the sub-heads of Entry 38. There was therefore material, on which the Collector could come to the conclusion that the goods imported by the petitioner, which were insulating tapes, black in colour and also adhesive in quality, fell within the sub-head "Adhesive Tape". As I said, on the material placed before me, I am unable to hold that it was a clear case of misclassification when the Collector held that the goods fell within the sub-head ''Adhesive tape". Therefore, the question whether even if there was a misclassification, it would constitute an error of law apparent on the face of the record, does not arise for consideration.7.The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the accepted trade usage was to treat these goods as falling under the head "Black insulating tape". Therefore, the question whether even if there was a misclassification, it would constitute an error of law apparent on the face of the record, does not arise for consideration.7.The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the accepted trade usage was to treat these goods as falling under the head "Black insulating tape". After the petitioner had been heard in part, further affidavits were filed both by the petitioner and the respondent, because I wanted to clear up one point, namely, whether black insulating tape covered both varieties, adhesive and non-adhesive. From the information furnished by the respondent, it is clear that there are varieties of black insulating tape which are non-adhesive in character and also, of course, black insulating tape adhesive in character. The petitioner, on the other hand, filed an affidavit to show that, according to the normal trade usage, black insulating tape covered both adhesive and non-adhesive varieties. Whatever might be the normal trade usage and however the goods might have been classified into before December, 1957, the question at issue is, was it a case of wrong classification when in March, 1958 the Collector of Customs came to the conclusion, that the imported goods fell under the sub-head "adhesive tape". I have already answered that question against the petitioner. That up to December, 1957, the goods had been classified as black insulating tape did not affect the jurisdiction of the Collector to classify these goods under a different head after December, 1957. Even if the subsequent classification was erroneous, that would leave the question of jurisdiction unaffected, whatever might be the legal consequences of the mis-classification, and whatever might be the remedies open to the petitioner to have that misclassification corrected. But, as I have said, it has not even been established that it was a clear case of misclassification. The plea that the Collector had no jurisdiction in March, 1958, to classify these goods as adhesive tape, therefore, fails.8.To understand the third of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, reference will have to be made to Paragraph 15 of the petitioner's affidavit, the allegations in which were controverted in Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit. The plea of the respondent, it should be remembered, was that, after December. The plea of the respondent, it should be remembered, was that, after December. 1957, the Customs Authorities in Madras took the view that an insulating tape which was adhesive, even if it was black in colour, was properly classifiable as adhesive tape and not as black insulating tape. In paragraph 15 of the petitioner's affidavit, two instances were given of importers, - Sha Fojaji Manormull and Sha Jetmull Ganmull who were allowed to clear their imported goods of the same classification without having to pay a penalty. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, it was averred that these two importers were allowed to clear the goods with a warning; that is, that no fine was imposed upon them was admitted. With reference to these averments, the question is, can a charge of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution be sustained. Though in March, 1958, itself two importers were dealt with in the matter of penalty, in a way different from the petitioner, that would not amount, in my opinion, to a violation of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. Even with reference to these two importers, that there was any classification other than what was applied to the petitioner was not alleged. It is only on the question of the penalty for an apparent breach of the law, - importing goods without a proper licence - that the charge of discrimination has been levelled that, while two of them were administered warnings, a pecuniary fine was imposed on the petitioner. These were at least quasi-judicial proceedings. The imposition of a penalty, after a breach of the law has been established, is a matter within the discretion of the authority which has jurisdiction to impose the punishment. An apparent difference in punishment is not enough to sustain a charge that Article 14 has been violated. That plea also fails.9.It might be that the petitioner throughout acted in good faith, and that, when he placed the order for the goods in question, he had the backing of the trade usage and the backing of the usage of the Customs Authorities at Madras that the goods were properly classifiable as black insulating tape under the sub-heads enumerated in the Index to the Policy Book. But, while good faith might be a factor that could be taken into account in determining the quantum of the penalty to be imposed, that would not affect the proper classification of the goods, nor the question whether, a contravention of Section 167(8) has been established. Obviously, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am not concerned with the soundness or otherwise of the discretion exercised by the Customs Collector in levying a fine on the petitioner. The rule nisi is discharged, and the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.