Prospective operation of import restrictions bars confiscation for goods imported before the restriction came into force.

A later import restriction cannot be applied retrospectively to goods imported before it came into force. Used digital multifunctional printer and copier machines imported in December 2009 fell outside the restriction on second-hand photocopiers introduced only from 5 June 2012, and the factual distinction between the goods supported that classification. The confiscation and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether import of used digital multifunctional printer and copier machines made before 5 June 2012 was hit by the restriction on second-hand photocopiers and required a licence, so as to sustain confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The restriction on import of the relevant goods was introduced only from 5 June 2012. The goods in question were imported in December 2009, i.e. before the restriction took effect. The classification and factual distinction between multifunctional printer and copier machines and second-hand photocopiers, together with the timing of the import, showed that the later restriction could not be applied retrospectively. The decision of the Madras High Court in similar circumstances was followed, holding that the notification bringing the goods within the restricted category operated only prospectively.

Conclusion: The import was not liable to be treated as restricted on the date of import, and the confiscation and penalty were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside because the post-2012 restriction could not be applied to an import made in 2009.

Ratio Decidendi: A later restriction on import cannot be invoked against goods imported prior to the date on which the restriction came into force.

---