Declared cargo imports for an EOU cannot be treated as baggage goods solely because of the mode of arrival.

Imported goods duly declared for clearance as cargo for a 100% EOU were not to be treated as baggage goods merely because of the mode of arrival. The applicable EOU policy provisions, rather than paragraph 5.6 of the EXIM Policy, governed the import because the record showed a cargo clearance claim and the scheme allowed receipt of raw material without duty. On that basis, paragraph 5.6 was held inapplicable and the matter was remitted for fresh processing under the EOU framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported PCI display control cards were to be treated as baggage goods so as to attract paragraph 5.6 of the EXIM Policy, and whether the import could be processed as cargo under the EOU scheme.

Analysis: The importer had declared the goods and sought clearance as cargo for the 100% EOU. The mode of import was held not to be decisive where the scheme permitted receipt of raw material without payment of duty. Since the record showed declaration and claim for cargo clearance, the insistence that the goods must be treated as baggage was not justified. On that basis, paragraph 5.6 was held inapplicable and paragraph 9.2 was treated as governing the import.

Conclusion: The goods were not to be treated as baggage goods for the purpose of the dispute, and the matter had to be considered under the EOU scheme.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, and the proceedings were sent back for fresh processing of the importer's claim for clearance of the goods under the EOU framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are duly declared and sought to be cleared as cargo for an EOU, the mere mode of arrival does not by itself justify classification as baggage goods or exclusion from the applicable EOU policy provisions.

---