Conjunctive reading of "and" in customs exemption entry limited exclusion to products with both MIMO and LTE technologies.

In an exemption notification, the word "and" in the entry for "MIMO and LTE Products" was construed conjunctively on its plain language and the notification as a whole, so the exclusion applied only to products combining both technologies. A later clarificatory amendment was treated as reflecting pre-existing ambiguity rather than expanding the earlier exclusion. Goods using MIMO technology but not LTE standard therefore fell outside the exclusion and remained entitled to Basic Customs Duty exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "and" in clause (iv) of Serial No. 13 of Notification No. 11/2014-Customs dated 11.07.2014, namely "MIMO and LTE Products", is to be read conjunctively so as to cover only products having both MIMO technology and LTE standard, and whether the imported goods were entitled to exemption from Basic Customs Duty.

Analysis: The expression was construed on its plain language and in the context of the notification as a whole. The word "and" was held to be used conjunctively, not disjunctively, and the entry was read as covering only products combining both MIMO technology and LTE standard. The later clarificatory amendment was treated as reflecting the existing ambiguity but not altering the meaning for disputes arising under the earlier entry.

Conclusion: The imported goods, which employed MIMO technology but not LTE standard, fell outside the exclusion clause and were entitled to exemption. The appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an exemption notification, the plain and conjunctive meaning of "and" must prevail where the text is clear, and a later clarificatory amendment does not enlarge the pre-amendment exclusion to cover goods using only one of the two specified technologies.

---