"16. It is hereby recorded that the petitioner has expressed its willingness to furnish end-user bond which would adequately safeguard the interest of the respondents apart from serving the purpose of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Considering the proceedings of the respondents dated 24th August, 2009, as disclosed in the typed set of papers filed by the third and fourth respondent, the fact that the import is not for the manufacture of the drugs but for use in the manufacture of food supplement, when the Rules themselves contemplate sufficient protection in matters of import of an item which is capable of multivarious uses, the insistence on obtaining Form 10-A in terms of Rule 23 does not appear to be a correct approach and the same is contrary to the Rule and the understanding of the respondents as disclosed in the letter dated 24th August, 2009 found in the typed set of papers filed by the third and fourth respondents. Thus, going by the Rules, which provide for exemption from going for licence in Form 10-A depending on the purport for which the import is made, it is difficult to accept the plea of the respondents solely on the basis of the earlier undertaking given by the petitioner or for that matter, the possibility of using the imported items contrary to the disclosed purpose. With the power of inspection available to check any possible abuse, the view of the respondents that the imported items is capable of being used in the manufacture of drug overlooks the very provisions of Rule 43 and 123 of the Rules. Consequently, so long as the disclosed purpose of import is for use in the manufacture of food supplement and hence, falls for consideration either under Rule 43 or 123 of the Rules, it is not open to the respondents to insist on the petitioner obtaining the licence in Form 10-A.
