Import conditions for new vehicles require country-of-manufacture compliance and prescribed certificates; breach supports confiscation and denial of exemption.

Import of a motorcycle in SKD condition was held non-compliant where the vehicle was manufactured in Japan but imported from the USA, because the import policy required import from the country of manufacture and compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The importer also failed to produce the prescribed testing-agency compliance certificate and conformity of production proof. The article notes that reliance on cases concerning only non-production of a Type Approval Certificate was distinguishable, as the present matter involved an additional breach of the import condition on the country of import. Confiscation and denial of exemption were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether import of a motorcycle in SKD condition from a country different from the country of manufacture, without the required compliance certificate under the import policy and motor vehicle rules, justified denial of exemption and confiscation.

Analysis: The import policy governing new vehicles required import from the country of manufacture and compliance with the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, including possession of a valid certificate of compliance from the prescribed testing agency and submission of conformity of production proof. The motorcycle was manufactured in Japan but imported from the USA, which did not satisfy the mandatory condition that the vehicle be imported from the country of manufacture. The required testing-agency certificate was also not produced. The cases relied upon by the appellant were distinguishable because they dealt only with non-production of a Type Approval Certificate, whereas the present case involved an additional and independent breach of the import condition regarding the country of import.

Conclusion: The import violated the applicable import conditions, and the confiscation and denial of relief were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits because the mandatory import conditions were not complied with, and the adjudication order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the import policy makes import from the country of manufacture and production of prescribed compliance certificates mandatory, non-compliance with either condition constitutes a valid basis for confiscation and denial of exemption.

---