Import policy on camera components: confiscation was set aside where lenses were treated as components and not barred goods.

Imported lenses were treated as components of photographic equipment rather than independent goods, and the relevant import policy had removed "component" from the barred list during the period in question. On that basis, confiscation was not warranted, particularly because the import was for a newspaper's own use and a liberal construction of the policy was appropriate. The confiscation was set aside and the fine already paid was directed to be refunded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported lenses, claimed to be components of photographic equipment for the newspaper's own use, were liable to confiscation and whether the fine already paid was refundable.

Analysis: The relevant import policy position was that the word "component" had been removed from the barred list during the relevant period. The imported lenses appeared to be components of a camera rather than independent equipment. The fact that the import was made by a newspaper for its own use also supported a liberal approach in the matter.

Conclusion: The confiscation was set aside and the fine already paid was directed to be refunded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are shown to be components rather than independent equipment and the policy position no longer bars such components, confiscation is not warranted, particularly where the import is for the importer's own use and liberal treatment is justified.

---