Capital goods for service use are outside consumer goods import restrictions, making confiscation of photocopiers unsustainable.

Imported second-hand photocopier machines used as office equipment for rendering service were treated as capital goods rather than consumer goods. The applicable import restriction covered consumer goods only, so equipment deployed for production or service use did not fall within that restriction. On that basis, confiscation for want of an import licence was not sustainable, and the lower authorities' order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether second-hand photocopier machines imported for rendering service were liable to confiscation for want of import licence, or were freely importable as capital goods and not consumer goods.

Analysis: The imported photocopier machines were treated as office equipment used for rendering service. The applicable import restriction related only to consumer goods, while capital goods for production or service were not restricted. On that basis, the goods could not be classified as consumer goods, and the confiscation ordered by the lower authorities was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The confiscation was unjustified, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported equipment qualifies as capital goods for service use and does not fall within the category of consumer goods, it is not subject to the import restriction applicable to consumer goods.

---