Prospective operation of import policy amendments affirmed for second-hand printing machinery imports under the prevailing Exim Policy.

Second-hand printing machinery with accessories was treated as capital goods and, under the prevailing Exim Policy, was freely importable without a licence because it was not specifically restricted. A later notification could not be applied to an import made before its issue date, as a substantive amendment to import policy operates prospectively unless expressly made retrospective. The appellate view in favour of the importer was therefore left undisturbed, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether import of second-hand printing machinery with accessories was permissible without licence under the Exim Policy, and whether Notification No. 31(RE-2005)/2004-2009 could be applied to an import made before its date.

Analysis: The import authority had treated the goods as capital goods and compared them with items subject to restriction, but the appellate authority found that printing machinery fell within the category of capital goods and was freely importable under the Exim Policy. The notification relied upon by the original authority was issued after the bill of entry and amended the substantive policy provisions. The Tribunal found no effective rebuttal to these findings and no infirmity in the appellate order.

Conclusion: The import was held to be permissible without licence, and the post-import notification could not be applied retrospectively against the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the relief granted by the appellate authority in favour of the importer stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive amendment to an import policy or restrictive notification operates prospectively unless made expressly retrospective, and second-hand capital goods not specifically restricted may be imported without licence under the prevailing policy.

---