Restricted import classification needs clear proof; ink additive and concentrate were not shown to match the canalised entries.

Restricted import classification under the Import Policy required clear and reasoned proof that the goods strictly answered the relevant canalised entry. The tribunal rejected the claim that the ink additive was a canalised silicone product under Appendix 9 because the record did not establish that character and relied only on a chemical opinion. It also held that an ink concentrate requiring further processing was not proved to be ball pen ink under item 341 of Appendix 5. Confiscation and redemption fine were accordingly set aside, and clearance of the goods was allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported ink additive was a canalised silicone product falling under Appendix 9 of the Import Policy AM 1983 and therefore not importable under Appendix 10(1); (ii) Whether the imported ink concentrate was the same as ball pen ink covered by item 341 of Appendix 5 of the Import Policy AM 1983.

Issue (i): Whether the imported ink additive was a canalised silicone product falling under Appendix 9 of the Import Policy AM 1983 and therefore not importable under Appendix 10(1).

Analysis: The objection against clearance rested on the assumption that the ink additive was a silicone grease or petroleum product. The record did not show that the department established that the goods were a petroleum product of special grade and type, nor was there any independent finding that the item answered the description in Appendix 9. The order was based only on the chemical opinion and did not contain a reasoned examination of the appellants' explanation or the prior clearances of similar goods.

Conclusion: The finding that the ink additive fell within Appendix 9 was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported ink concentrate was the same as ball pen ink covered by item 341 of Appendix 5 of the Import Policy AM 1983.

Analysis: Item 341 covered printing inks, writing inks and ball pen inks. The material on record showed only that the sample was an ink concentrate containing ingredients for finished ball pen ink and requiring further processing before use. The chemical opinion did not establish that the goods were ready-to-use ball pen ink or that they satisfied the recognised characteristics of ball pen ink. On that basis, the concentrate could not be equated with the restricted entry.

Conclusion: The ink concentrate was not proved to be ball pen ink under item 341, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation and the redemption fine were set aside, and the imported goods were held eligible for clearance under the import policy.

Ratio Decidendi: A restricted import entry must be established by clear and reasoned proof that the goods strictly answer its description; a mere chemical opinion or assumption is insufficient to sustain confiscation.

---