Import policy clarification prevails over tariff classification for OGL eligibility, supporting clearance of covered goods.

Import policy interpretation by the licensing authority prevails over other clarifications, and a pre-shipment clarification covering the goods supported OGL eligibility for Hypalon 40. Customs Tariff classification for duty assessment was not determinative of import policy or Open General Licence treatment, because tariff classification and import-control classification serve different purposes. On that basis, the goods were treated as permissible under the import policy framework, and the confiscation order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import of Hypalon 40 was covered by the Open General Licence under the relevant Import Policy entry and by the clarification issued by the licensing authority; (ii) Whether the classification adopted for Customs Tariff purposes governed the classification for import policy and OGL purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the import of Hypalon 40 was covered by the Open General Licence under the relevant Import Policy entry and by the clarification issued by the licensing authority.

Analysis: The import policy provided that the interpretation given by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports on matters of import policy and procedure would prevail over any other clarification. The appellants obtained a clarification before shipment, and that clarification stated that the goods were covered by the relevant OGL entry for synthetic rubber. The record did not show any contrary material displacing that clarification.

Conclusion: The import was covered by the OGL entry and the prior clarification supported clearance of the goods; this issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the classification adopted for Customs Tariff purposes governed the classification for import policy and OGL purposes.

Analysis: The Customs Tariff classification and the import policy classification serve different objects. The alignment referred to in the Handbook did not make the tariff classification determinative for import control. The question for OGL eligibility had to be answered under the import policy and the clarification issued under that policy, not by importing the tariff classification used for duty assessment.

Conclusion: Customs Tariff classification was not ative for OGL eligibility, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order could not be sustained, and the import was held to be permissible under the import policy framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the import policy vests final interpretative authority in the licensing authority and a pre-shipment clarification covers the goods, customs authorities cannot disregard that clarification by relying solely on a different tariff classification adopted for duty assessment.

---