Capital goods interpretation under import policy: fax machines qualified, and Exim Scrips import restrictions were not imported in

Fax machines imported against Exim Scrips were treated as capital goods because the policy definition matched an earlier period in which Customs had accepted fax machines as capital goods, and that contemporaneous departmental practice was used as an interpretive aid. Para 195A of the Import Policy, 1990-93 was read independently to permit import of permissible non-OGL capital goods against Exim Scrips without an upper value limit or actual user condition. On that construction, restrictions from para 124 were not imported into para 195A, so confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unjustified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether fax machines imported against Exim Scrips were non-OGL capital goods; (ii) Whether the imports were permissible under para 195A of the Import Policy, 1990-93, so as to invalidate confiscation and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether fax machines imported against Exim Scrips were non-OGL capital goods.

Analysis: The definition of capital goods in the relevant policy was identical to the earlier policy period in which fax machines had been treated by the Customs authorities as capital goods and permitted clearance. That contemporaneous departmental practice was treated as a relevant aid to construction. The nature of fax machines as equipment used for communication and service further supported their treatment as capital goods rather than merely as ordinary office machines.

Conclusion: Yes. The fax machines were held to be capital goods.

Issue (ii): Whether the imports were permissible under para 195A of the Import Policy, 1990-93, so as to invalidate confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: Para 195A, introduced by amendment, permitted import of permissible non-OGL capital goods against Exim Scrips without any upper value limit and without the actual user condition. The policy provision was read as independent of para 124, and the absence of a cross-reference to para 124 was treated as significant, especially when other provisions expressly imposed such restrictions where intended. The later amendment was held to prevail and the import restriction and actual-user requirement in para 124 were not applied to imports under para 195A.

Conclusion: Yes. The imports were permissible under para 195A and the confiscation and penalty were unjustified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the goods were treated as permissible capital goods importable against Exim Scrips, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous administrative construction of an identical policy expression is a relevant guide to its interpretation, and a later, specific import-policy amendment permitting unrestricted import of permissible non-OGL capital goods against Exim Scrips will operate according to its terms without importing restrictions from an earlier, unincorporated provision.

---