Import policy for second-hand capital goods cannot imply an actual-user restriction where the text permits trader imports.

Clear policy language permitting import of second-hand capital goods subject to a two-year restriction on transfer, sale or disposal without DGFT approval could not be supplemented by an implied actual-user requirement. Because the import policy and Handbook of Procedure did not expressly limit such imports to actual users, a trader was not excluded from importing second-hand industrial sewing machines. On that basis, the confiscation and penalty were set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether second-hand industrial sewing machines could be imported by a trader under the relevant import policy and procedure, or only by an actual user.

Analysis: The policy and the Handbook of Procedure permitted import of second-hand capital goods subject to the condition that they would not be transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of for two years without prior permission of the DGFT. No express stipulation required the importer to be an actual user. A condition restricting import to actual users could not be read into clear policy language by implication. The fact that post-import sale or disposal was permissible with DGFT approval also showed that traders were not excluded from import.

Conclusion: The import by a trader was held permissible and the confiscation and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the impugned order was annulled with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the policy language governing import of second-hand capital goods is clear, an actual-user restriction cannot be implied in the absence of an express provision, and the goods cannot be treated as liable to confiscation on that basis.

---