Import policy coverage of Vitamin B-1 extended to Thiamine salts, while interpretative doubt justified lower redemption fine.

Thiamine Hydrochloride and Thiamine Mono-nitrate were treated as falling within the import policy entry for Vitamin B-1 because Thiamine is the generic substance and those products are its recognised commercial salt forms. On that basis, the imports were regarded as canalised and not covered by a valid licence. The Tribunal also noted that the policy admitted more than one plausible interpretation, so while confiscability was maintained, the redemption fine was reduced as excessive in the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Thiamine Hydrochloride and Thiamine Mono-nitrate were covered by the entry Vitamin B-1 in Appendix 9 of the Import Policy and were therefore canalised items importable only under a valid licence. (ii) Whether the redemption fine required reduction on account of the scope for two interpretations of the Import Policy.

Issue (i): Whether Thiamine Hydrochloride and Thiamine Mono-nitrate were covered by the entry Vitamin B-1 in Appendix 9 of the Import Policy and were therefore canalised items importable only under a valid licence.

Analysis: The material placed before the Tribunal showed that Thiamine is the generic substance corresponding to Vitamin B-1 and that Thiamine Hydrochloride and Thiamine Mono-nitrate are recognised commercial forms or salts of that substance. The Tribunal relied on the technical literature and on the policy framework, including para 198(4) of AM 80-81 Policy, under which any salt or ester of Vitamin B-1 was covered by the entry Vitamin B-1. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view that the canalisation covered the form in which Vitamin B-1 was actually available in trade and commerce.

Conclusion: The imports of Thiamine Hydrochloride and Thiamine Mono-nitrate were covered by Vitamin B-1 and were not covered by a valid licence.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine required reduction on account of the scope for two interpretations of the Import Policy.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted that the case involved a genuine interpretative doubt and that the contemporaneous policy material and official views reflected conflicting approaches. In that setting, the imposition of a very high redemption fine was considered excessive, though confiscability of the goods was sustained.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced to 25% of the C.I.F. value.

Final Conclusion: The classification and licence objection was sustained, but the monetary consequence was moderated because the dispute admitted of more than one plausible interpretation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a canalised entry in the import policy covers the substance in its commercially available salt forms, those forms are treated as included in the entry; however, a genuine ambiguity in policy interpretation may justify reduction of redemption fine while upholding confiscation.

---