Import licence classification turns on policy definitions: stitching unit treated as a complete machine, not a spare part.

Imported goods were held to fall outside the licence because the stitching unit was a complete unit in itself, not a spare part, accessory or sub-assembly under the Import Policy 1978-79 definitions. Classification had to be determined by the specific import policy definitions governing the licence, not by a general meaning drawn from another statute. The confiscation finding was upheld on that basis. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 9,000, with refund of the excess amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported stitching unit was a spare part covered by the import licence or a complete machine outside the licence, and whether the confiscation with modified redemption fine was sustainable.

Analysis: The imported item was examined in the light of the Import Policy 1978-79, which contained express definitions of capital goods, spare, accessory and part. On the facts and the drawing relied upon, the stitching unit was found to be a complete unit in itself and not a ready substitute part or sub-assembly meant for replacement. The earlier authority's view that the import was not covered by the licence was therefore accepted. The reliance on the Supreme Court decision dealing with the meaning of machinery under the Income-tax Act was held to be of no assistance because the present issue had to be decided on the specific import policy definitions governing the licence.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not covered by the licence as spare parts, and the finding of confiscation was upheld. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 9,000, with refund of the excess amount, but the appeal was otherwise rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the import policy contains specific definitions of spare, accessory and part, classification of imported goods must be determined by those definitions and not by a general meaning drawn from another statute.

---