Strict construction of import exemptions and OGL entries: breathing apparatus failed the policy test, but explosives permission supported release.

Open General Licence coverage for compressed air breathing apparatus depended on whether the goods answered the policy description of portable breathing equipment; because the apparatus could not be treated as portable on the record, OGL clearance was denied. The amended Chief Controller of Explosives permission, expressly covering import of 22 medical oxygen cylinders, was accepted as sufficient for the stated quantity and description. Duty-free clearance under Notification No. 208/81-Cus was unavailable because the exemption was confined to medical equipment used in treatment and healing, not fire-fighting or industrial rescue apparatus. The importer was allowed redemption of the confiscated goods on payment of fine, but the denials of OGL and customs exemption otherwise stood.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported compressed air breathing apparatus sets were eligible for clearance under Open General Licence; (ii) whether the permission from the Chief Controller of Explosives covered the imported quantity and description; and (iii) whether the goods were entitled to duty-free clearance under Notification No. 208/81-Cus.

Issue (i): whether the imported compressed air breathing apparatus sets were eligible for clearance under Open General Licence.

Analysis: The relevant policy entry covered portable intermittent positive pressure breathing apparatus with accessories, compressed air breathing apparatus sets and other breathing protection equipment used by fire services, and filter self-rescuer for mines. The decisive question was whether the imported apparatus could be treated as portable. On the material on record, including the weight and size of the cylinders, the apparatus could not be carried on the person or treated as portable. The interpretation urged for ignoring the separating punctuation in the entry was rejected.

Conclusion: The claim to clearance under Open General Licence failed and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the permission from the Chief Controller of Explosives covered the imported quantity and description.

Analysis: The amended permission expressly referred to import of 22 medical oxygen cylinders and recorded that there was no objection to release of the subject cylinders. The amendment cured the earlier discrepancy in quantity. The authority's view that the permission did not tally with the goods was not accepted.

Conclusion: The permission was held to be valid and sufficient in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the goods were entitled to duty-free clearance under Notification No. 208/81-Cus.

Analysis: The exemption notification was construed in line with the earlier Tribunal ruling relied upon by the Bench, which confined the benefit to medical equipment used in treatment and healing and not to apparatus meant for fire-fighting or industrial rescue use. Since the imported goods were not of the kind covered by that medical-use description, the exemption was unavailable.

Conclusion: The claim for duty-free benefit was rejected and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the importer was permitted to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of fine, but the challenge to the denial of OGL clearance and customs exemption otherwise failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption and OGL entries must be construed according to their plain terms and the goods must strictly answer the description and intended use required by the policy or notification; where they do not, the benefit cannot be extended, though a valid explosive-control permission may support release of the goods.

---