Import policy entries must be read with their schedule heading; actual user status depends on the manufacturing category covered.

An import policy entry must be read with its specific schedule heading, and the definition of Actual User (Industrial) must be construed harmoniously with that policy structure. On that approach, only manufacturers of garment, hosiery or made-ups could qualify for import of the listed high-speed multiple needle sewing machine under the relevant policy entry, so a broader industrial user claim was not accepted. The text further states that an additional licence subject to the same end-use requirement could not support clearance where the importer did not satisfy Actual User status, and the confiscation and redemption fine were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant qualified as an Actual User (Industrial) for import of the disputed high speed multiple needle sewing machine under the Import and Export Policy, 1985-88. (ii) Whether the goods could alternatively be cleared under the additional licence dated 17-7-1985.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant qualified as an Actual User (Industrial) for import of the disputed high speed multiple needle sewing machine under the Import and Export Policy, 1985-88.

Analysis: The relevant entry in Appendix 1, Part B placed the disputed machine under the head "Machinery for manufacture of Garment/Hosiery/Made-ups". The same class of machines also appeared in related entries, showing that the item had to be read with the specific serial heading under which it was listed. The definition of Actual User (Industrial) could not be read in isolation from the policy structure. Reading the definition harmoniously with Appendix 1, Part B, only manufacturers of garment/hosiery/made-ups could be treated as actual users of the disputed item.

Conclusion: The appellant was not an Actual User (Industrial) for the disputed goods.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods could alternatively be cleared under the additional licence dated 17-7-1985.

Analysis: The additional licence was issued subject to the policy provisions requiring the goods ultimately to be used by an Actual User (Industrial). Since the appellant did not satisfy that status for the disputed machinery, the alternative claim under the licence could not succeed.

Conclusion: The alternative claim under the additional licence failed.

Final Conclusion: The import was not eligible for clearance under the claimed policy route or under the additional licence, so the order of confiscation and redemption fine was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: An entry in an import policy schedule must be read with its specific heading and the definition of actual user must be construed harmoniously with the policy structure, so eligibility depends on the category of manufacture contemplated by that entry.

---