Import policy compliance, homologation certificates, and confiscation of motor vehicles were examined amid a recorded difference of opinion.

Differing views are recorded on whether motor vehicles routed through intermediary countries can still satisfy an import policy condition requiring import from the country of manufacture, with one view accepting documentary proof of origin movement and another insisting on direct import. On homologation or type approval certificates, one view applied the principle that the law does not compel impossibilities, while the other treated the certificate issue as not displacing confiscation based on the main import-condition breach. The text also records conflicting views on confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, and states that the matter was referred on a difference of opinion without final resolution in the supplied material.

---

---

Issues: Whether motor vehicles imported via intermediate countries could be treated as imported from the country of manufacture for compliance with the import policy condition; whether non-production of homologation/type approval certificates justified confiscation and penalty; and whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty could be sustained on the facts of the three appeals.

Issue (i): Whether motor vehicles imported via intermediate countries could be treated as imported from the country of manufacture for compliance with the import policy condition.

Analysis: One view held that the policy condition requiring import from the country of manufacture did not require direct shipment without transhipment, and that documentary evidence showing movement from the country of manufacture through intermediary countries could satisfy the condition. The contrary view held that routing through Dubai and Thailand did not meet the condition because the goods were not imported directly from the country of manufacture and the policy language could not be diluted by reading in such a requirement.

Conclusion: No final majority decision is available on this issue in the text.

Issue (ii): Whether non-production of homologation/type approval certificates justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: One view followed the principle that the law does not compel impossibilities and treated the inability to obtain the required certificate from the relevant accredited agency as sufficient reason not to treat the omission as a contravention. The other view did not disturb confiscation on the main import-condition violation, but reduced the monetary consequences in light of the accepted position on the certificate-related condition.

Conclusion: No final majority decision is available on this issue in the text.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty could be sustained on the facts of the three appeals.

Analysis: The text records divergent views, one sustaining confiscation but reducing redemption fine and penalty, and the other setting aside the orders in full. The matter is referred as a difference of opinion, and the final resolution is not contained in the supplied text.

Conclusion: No final conclusive determination is available in the text.

Final Conclusion: The supplied order reflects a difference of opinion and does not contain a final majority resolution on the reliefs in the three appeals.

---