Consumer goods classification for imported dry fruits defeated REP licence and OGL claims under the import policy.

Dry fruits such as hard shell almonds, dry figs and raisins were treated as consumer goods because they directly satisfy human needs without further processing. Their bulk import and intended use as raw materials for export manufacture did not change that character, as the policy contained no exception removing consumer-goods status on that basis. The REP licence also did not authorise import, because a licence cannot confer a right broader than the applicable policy and consumer goods remained excluded; the goods were likewise not available for import as OGL items.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported dry fruits were consumer goods under the relevant import policies; (ii) whether the goods ceased to be consumer goods because they were imported in bulk or were required as raw materials for manufacturing export products; (iii) whether the REP licence covered the import and whether the goods could have been imported as OGL items.

Issue (i): whether the imported dry fruits were consumer goods under the relevant import policies

Analysis: The definition of consumer goods in the relevant policies covered goods which directly satisfy human needs without further processing. Hard shell almonds, dry figs and raisins were held to fall within that description. The size of the consignment or the fact that the goods were intended for further use in manufacture did not alter their essential character.

Conclusion: The goods were consumer goods.

Issue (ii): whether the goods ceased to be consumer goods because they were imported in bulk or were required as raw materials for manufacturing export products

Analysis: The policies did not create any exception based on bulk import or on the intended use of the goods as raw materials. The special facility for manufacturer-exporters remained subject to the restrictions in the policy, including the prohibition against consumer goods. The fact that the goods were sought for use in manufacturing did not remove them from the category of consumer goods.

Conclusion: The goods did not cease to be consumer goods.

Issue (iii): whether the REP licence covered the import and whether the goods could have been imported as OGL items

Analysis: The licence endorsement permitted import only within the limits of the relevant policy provisions. Since consumer goods were excluded under the applicable policy restrictions and the goods were not specifically covered for import under OGL, the licence did not authorise the import. The policy position for the relevant period also did not permit import of dry fruits as OGL items.

Conclusion: The licence was not valid for the import and the goods could not have been imported as OGL items.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the imported goods were correctly treated as consumer goods, the licence did not cover them, and no OGL entitlement existed for the import.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that directly satisfy human needs remain consumer goods notwithstanding bulk import or intended use as raw materials, and where the applicable import policy excludes consumer goods, a licence cannot be construed to confer a larger import right than the policy permits.

---