DFIA import restrictions on areca nut applied under the existing public notice, defeating clearance of betel nut splits.

Import of betel nut splits under transferable DFIA licences was not permissible on these facts because the operative public notice in force required areca nut to be imported only by an actual user or to be specifically mentioned in the relevant SION. The importer was not an actual user, and the SION entries for the exported leather products did not specifically refer to areca nut, so clearance was denied. Later Notification No. 31(RE-2013)/2009-14 and Public Notices Nos. 32 and 35 of 2013 were treated as prospective and did not retrospectively bar prior transferable DFIAs; however, they did not displace the earlier 15.05.2012 public notice governing the disputed imports. The challenge to the adverse order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether betel nut splits could be imported under transferable DFIA licences when the relevant SION entries for finished leather did not specifically mention areca nut and whether the later notification and public notices operated retrospectively to disallow such imports.

Analysis: Notification No. 31(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 01.08.2013, which inserted a requirement that the input used in manufacture must match the description endorsed in the shipping bill, was held to be prospective because the text did not indicate retrospective operation. Public Notice No. 32(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 23.10.2013 was also treated as prospective. Public Notice No. 35(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 30.10.2013 clarified that where a DFIA had already been endorsed transferable before 01.08.2013, the new restriction would not apply. Even so, the controlling instrument for the disputed imports was Public Notice No. 112(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 15.05.2012, which permitted import of areca nut only by an actual user or where it was specifically mentioned in the relevant SION. The importer was not an actual user, and areca nut was not specifically mentioned in the SION entries for the exported leather products. The earlier authorities and precedents relied on by the appellant did not assist because they did not negate the statutory effect of the 15.05.2012 public notice in the present factual setting.

Conclusion: The restriction in the 15.05.2012 public notice applied, the goods were not eligible for clearance under the DFIA licences, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.

---