Consumer goods imported without a specific licence were liable to confiscation, with penalty sustained for unauthorised import.

Imported personal computers were treated as consumer goods because they were capable of directly satisfying human needs, and such goods required a specific import licence for lawful clearance. The importer failed to show that the licence relied on covered the import, so the goods were regarded as unauthorised imports outside OGL. On that basis, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported personal computers were consumer goods requiring a specific import licence and, if so, whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The imported goods were treated as consumer goods because they were capable of directly satisfying human needs. Once so characterised, they were outside OGL and required a specific import licence for lawful clearance. No material was produced to dislodge the finding that the licence relied on by the importer did not cover the import. The unauthorised nature of the import justified confiscation and the accompanying penalty.

Conclusion: The challenge to confiscation and penalty failed, and the importers' appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation with redemption fine and penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods falling within consumer goods and imported without the requisite specific import licence are liable to confiscation, and penalty may be imposed for unauthorised import.

---