Import policy at date of import governs eligibility, and unauthorised spare parts imports can justify confiscation of the whole consignment.

Import eligibility under the 1978-79 policy depended on the policy in force at the time of import, not a later policy. Spare parts identified as parts of MAN trucks or chassis were treated as conveyance parts, not earth moving machinery spares, and could not be cleared under the Open General Licence. The policy also limited permissible spares to actual users, so agents could not claim that status. Where part of a consignment consisted of banned items and the remainder was imported without valid entitlement, the whole consignment was liable to confiscation. Prior releases of similar consignments without penalty did not prevent confiscation, though the redemption fine was reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported spare parts were eligible for clearance under the Import Policy 1978-79 as spare parts of earth moving machinery and whether the appellants, not being the actual users, could claim import under the Open General Licence. (ii) Whether the entire consignment was liable to confiscation even though only part of the goods were banned items and whether past releases of similar consignments without penalty required a different result.

Issue (i): Whether the imported spare parts were eligible for clearance under the Import Policy 1978-79 as spare parts of earth moving machinery and whether the appellants, not being the actual users, could claim import under the Open General Licence.

Analysis: The governing policy was the Import Policy for 1978-79, and the later policy for 1979-80 could not control the legality of the earlier import. On the facts, the goods were found to be spare parts of MAN trucks or chassis, which were conveyances and not earth moving machinery. The relevant policy also permitted import of permissible spares only by actual users, whereas the appellants were only agents and not the actual users. The claim to clearance under the Open General Licence therefore failed.

Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for import under the Open General Licence and the appellants could not claim clearance as actual users.

Issue (ii): Whether the entire consignment was liable to confiscation even though only part of the goods were banned items and whether past releases of similar consignments without penalty required a different result.

Analysis: Goods worth part of the consignment were admittedly banned items and were plainly liable to confiscation. The remaining goods were also imported without a valid entitlement under the applicable policy and were therefore equally unauthorised. Earlier releases of similar consignments without penal action did not create a bar against confiscation in the present matter. The confiscation was thus sustainable for the whole consignment, with the quantum of redemption fine separately reduced.

Conclusion: The entire consignment was liable to confiscation, and the earlier customs practice did not alter that result.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits, the confiscation was sustained, and only the redemption fine was reduced.

Ratio Decidendi: An import must be judged by the policy in force at the time of import, and where the importer is not the actual user and the goods are not within the permitted class, the import is unauthorised and the whole consignment is liable to confiscation.

---