Imported goods with the essential character of shoe upper parts were denied exemption under the advance licence notification.

Imported printed PVC sheets were denied exemption under an advance licence notification because, on examination at the time of import, they possessed the essential character of classifiable shoe upper parts. The goods were not plain PVC cloth; they were printed, embossed, patterned and grooved so that each sheet, when cut, yielded identifiable shoe upper pieces with distinct features. The Court held that exemption could not be claimed by relying on the general description in the licence when the goods themselves fell within a specific tariff classification. The principle that goods are assessed in the condition in which they are imported did not assist the importer, and the adverse finding was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported printed PVC goods were entitled to exemption under the advance licence notification as materials covered by the licence, or were properly classifiable as parts of shoe uppers and therefore outside the exempted category.

Analysis: The imported sheets were not plain PVC cloth. They were printed, embossed, patterned and grooved in a manner that each sheet, when cut, yielded identifiable shoe upper pieces with distinct features. The physical characteristics of the goods at the time of import showed that they had the essential and substantial attributes of shoe uppers, and the printing and embossing were not merely cosmetic. The exemption could not be claimed merely on the basis of the general description in the licence when the goods, on examination, fell within a specific tariff classification. The principle that goods are assessed in the state in which they are imported did not assist the appellant because the imported article itself already bore the characteristics of the classified article.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not entitled to exemption as claimed and were correctly treated as classifiable parts of shoe uppers; the finding against the appellant was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption under an import licence notification cannot be claimed where the imported goods, on objective examination at the time of import, possess the essential character of a different specifically classifiable article.

---