Import restriction for multifunction printing machines applied prospectively; pre-5-6-2012 imports needed no licence.

Old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines imported before 5-6-2012 were not covered by the then-existing restriction on second-hand photocopier machines under the Foreign Trade Policy. The later amendment expressly adding multifunction machines to the restricted list was treated as prospective, supported by the Tribunal's reliance on Madras High Court rulings and Technical Review Committee minutes showing that a specific amendment was needed to restrict such goods. In the absence of any contrary binding High Court decision, the Tribunal followed that view and held that no import licence was required for the relevant period, so the Revenue's appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines imported prior to 5-6-2012 were restricted goods requiring an import licence under Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: Para 2.17, as it stood before 5-6-2012, restricted second-hand photocopier machines, while Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines were expressly added to the restricted category only from 5-6-2012. The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court decisions holding that multifunction machines were not covered by the earlier restriction and that the later amendment was prospective. The minutes of the Technical Review Committee also showed that multifunction machines were treated as distinct from photocopier machines and that a specific amendment was considered necessary to place them in the restricted list. In the absence of a contrary High Court ruling, the High Court view was binding.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not restricted during the relevant period and no import licence was required; the Revenue's appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later amendment specifically adds a product to the restricted import list, the product is not treated as covered by the earlier restriction unless the earlier text clearly encompassed it, and a binding High Court decision on the point must be followed by the Tribunal.

---