Import policy interpretation favoured importer: synthetic shoe uppers were treated as valid REP licence imports despite later clarification.

Synthetic shoe uppers imported under REP licences were treated as covered by "footwear components" under the 1985-88 Import & Export Policy, and their validity had to be tested against the published policy and licence terms, not a later departmental clarification. The text also notes that Customs had followed a consistent prior practice of clearing similar consignments, so an abrupt departure without prior notice could not be used to refuse clearance or sustain confiscation and redemption fine. Where competing interpretations were available in a fiscal import policy setting, the interpretation favourable to the importer was preferred, resulting in the imports being treated as valid and the pending consignments being liable to duty assessment and clearance.

---

---

Issues: Whether synthetic shoe uppers imported under the REP licences issued under the Import & Export Policy 1985-88 were covered by the expression "footwear components" and were therefore validly importable, and whether the Customs authorities could refuse clearance and sustain confiscation and redemption fine by relying on a later departmental clarification and a departure from their earlier consistent practice.

Analysis: The relevant policy entry permitted import of footwear components against the specified export product group, and the subsequent policy expressly excluded shoe uppers, which indicated that shoe uppers had been treated as included in the earlier policy regime. The Court held that the validity of importation had to be judged from the published Import & Export Policy and the licence, not from an administrative clarification issued later. It further relied on the consistent past practice of the Customs authorities in clearing similar consignments, holding that the authorities could not abruptly depart from that practice without prior notice to affected importers. The Court also applied the principle that where two interpretations are possible in a fiscal or import policy context, the interpretation favourable to the importer should be preferred.

Conclusion: The imported shoe uppers were held to be covered by the REP licences and the confiscation and redemption fine could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned adjudication order was set aside, with a direction to assess duty and clear the pending consignments as valid imports under the REP licences.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the policy language and consistent past administrative practice support a permissible import, a later contrary clarification cannot defeat the importer's entitlement, and any ambiguity in such beneficial import policy must be resolved in favour of the importer.

---