Free import of second hand multifunction machines under trade policy was preserved; later authorisation amendment applied only prospectively.

Second hand digital multifunction print and copying machines were treated as freely importable under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 when Paragraph 2.7, Paragraph 2.17 and Clause 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedures were read harmoniously, with no implied prohibition on free import. The later amendment of 28.02.2013, which introduced authorisation for the specified goods and deleted Clause 2.33, was treated as a substantive change operating only prospectively, so it did not govern earlier imports. The reported result was affirmation of release of the goods to the importers and dismissal of the Revenue's challenge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the relevant period under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, second hand digital multifunction print and copying machines were freely importable under Clause 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) read with Paragraphs 2.7 and 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy. (ii) Whether the amendment introduced on 28.02.2013 to Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy operated retrospectively so as to govern imports made before that date.

Issue (i): Whether, for the relevant period under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, second hand digital multifunction print and copying machines were freely importable under Clause 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) read with Paragraphs 2.7 and 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: Paragraph 2.7 permits import of restricted goods only in accordance with authorisation, permission, licence, or the prescribed procedure. Paragraph 2.17 classifies second hand capital goods and, in the relevant restricted category, refers to photocopier machines and digital multifunction print and copying machines. Clause 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedures separately states that import of second hand capital goods, except personal computers and laptops, shall be allowed freely subject to the stated conditions. Reading the policy and the procedure together, the Court found no conflict: the procedural clause did not impose a further restriction on the subject goods and the language of the policy did not justify reading an implied prohibition on their free import.

Conclusion: The imports were held to be covered by the free-import regime then in force, and the challenge by the Revenue failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment introduced on 28.02.2013 to Paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy operated retrospectively so as to govern imports made before that date.

Analysis: The amendment, which later required authorisation for the specified second hand capital goods, was treated as a substantive change in the policy framework. The Court held that the amended regime and the consequential deletion of Clause 2.33 were relevant only from the date of the amendment and could not be applied to imports made earlier. The earlier policy alone governed the dispute.

Conclusion: The 28.02.2013 amendment was held not to apply retrospectively to the imports in question.

Final Conclusion: The order of the single Judge was affirmed, the writ appeals were dismissed, and the goods were directed to be released in favour of the importers.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the policy and the handbook governing imports are clear, they must be read harmoniously on their plain terms, and a later substantive amendment to the foreign trade regime does not operate retrospectively unless expressly made applicable.

---