Age alone does not make goods second-hand; import restrictions require the goods to fit that legal description.

Goods manufactured years earlier are not second-hand goods merely because of age; that legal description depends on the nature and condition of the goods, not the time of manufacture. On the facts discussed, the only assessment issue was valuation, and no violation of the import policy had arisen at that stage. The Exim Policy 1997-2002 restriction requiring a specific import licence therefore did not apply, because old goods are not automatically treated as second-hand goods unless they clearly answer that description in law. The importer's clearance was sustained and the Revenue's new appellate objection was rejected as lacking merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods manufactured years earlier could be treated as second-hand goods so as to attract the import restriction under the Exim Policy 1997-2002 and require a specific import licence.

Analysis: The only assessment dispute was on valuation, and no issue of violation of the import policy had arisen at that stage. The mere fact that the goods were manufactured in 1988-89 did not make them second-hand goods. Second-hand goods have a specific connotation in law, and age by itself does not convert old goods into second-hand goods.

Conclusion: The goods were not second-hand goods merely because of their age, and the import restriction relied upon by the Revenue did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed as the new ground raised in appeal was found to be without merit, and the importer's clearance of the goods was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Old or used-in-time goods are not automatically second-hand goods unless their nature clearly answers that legal description.

---