Import licence must match endorsed end-product; unexpressed coverage cannot be implied, though technical breach may justify lower redemption fine.

Import under an automatic licence was confined to goods required for manufacture of final products expressly covered by the licence and supporting registration certificate, and customs could not enlarge the licence by implying an unendorsed end-product. On that basis, styrene monomer was held not importable under the licence as issued, so confiscation was upheld. However, the omission was treated as a licensing defect of a technical nature rather than a substantive abuse, and the redemption fine was reduced substantially with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether styrene monomer could be imported under the automatic licence when the end-product of pigment binder was not endorsed in the import licence, and whether the redemption fines warranted reduction.

Analysis: The policy permitted import of goods required for manufacture of final products specified in the industrial licence or registration certificate, and such imports had to conform strictly to the certificate. Although the registration certificate had endorsed pigment binder as an activity, the import licence did not mention that end-product. The customs authority could not enlarge the licence by reading into it what was not expressed there. At the same time, the omission appeared to be a licensing omission and the breach was treated as technical in nature, justifying leniency on the quantum of redemption fine.

Conclusion: The import of monomer was not permissible under the licence as issued, so confiscation was upheld. The redemption fines were reduced substantially and consequential relief was granted.

---