Airway Bill date governs shipment date for air imports, making a later notification inapplicable under the policy rule.

For air imports, the shipment date under Paragraph 9.11 of the Handbook of Procedure 2015-20 is the date shown on the Airway Bill, not the later date when the goods physically leave the foreign airport. Applying that rule, a notification effective from 18.10.2017 was held inapplicable where the Airway Bill was dated 17.10.2017. An observation on the alleged free importability of gold before 18.12.2019 was treated as beyond the scope of the dispute and was deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for imports by air, the date of shipment under Notification No. 34/2015-20 dated 18.10.2017 is the date of the Airway Bill or the date on which the goods actually left the last airport in the country of export; (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the notification dated 18.10.2017 was not applicable to the import in question; (iii) Whether the Tribunal's finding on the availability of free import of gold prior to 18.12.2019 was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether, for imports by air, the date of shipment under Notification No. 34/2015-20 dated 18.10.2017 is the date of the Airway Bill or the date on which the goods actually left the last airport in the country of export.

Analysis: Paragraph 9.11 of the Handbook of Procedure 2015-20 treats the date of the relevant Airway Bill as the date of shipment in case of air transport, while other modes similarly tie the shipment date to documentary proof such as the Bill of Lading, postal dispatch date, courier receipt, or combined transport document. The structure of the provision indicates that the relevant date is the documentary date reflected in the transport document, not the later date of physical departure from the foreign airport.

Conclusion: The date of the Airway Bill is the relevant date of shipment, and this issue is answered against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the notification dated 18.10.2017 was not applicable to the import in question.

Analysis: Since the Airway Bill was dated 17.10.2017 and the notification imposing the utilisation condition came into effect on 18.10.2017, the Tribunal correctly applied the shipment-date rule under Paragraph 9.11 and held the notification inapplicable to the import. The High Court found the Tribunal's interpretation consistent with the governing text and saw no basis to interfere on this point.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's view on non-applicability of the notification is upheld, and this issue is decided against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal's finding on the availability of free import of gold prior to 18.12.2019 was sustainable.

Analysis: The question whether gold was freely importable before 18.12.2019 did not arise from the orders under challenge before the Tribunal and was not a matter that required determination on the appeal before it. The Tribunal's observation on that topic was therefore unnecessary and beyond the scope of the dispute.

Conclusion: The finding on this issue is set aside, and this issue is decided in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The substantive ruling on shipment date and applicability of the notification is maintained, while the extraneous finding on free importability is deleted, leaving the appeal only partly successful.

Ratio Decidendi: For air imports, the shipment date under the relevant policy provision is the date reflected in the Airway Bill, not the later date of physical departure from the foreign airport, and only issues arising from the impugned orders can be adjudicated.

---