Strict construction of penal notifications excluded acetate yarn from synthetic yarn coverage, defeating confiscation and penalties.

A penal notification under Chapter IVA covering synthetic yarn had to be construed strictly, and any ambiguity in its coverage was resolved in favour of the person proceeded against. On the text of the notification and a textile dictionary meaning, acetate yarn was treated as outside the expression "synthetic yarn," since that expression was understood to refer to man-made fibres and yarn but not rayon or acetate. As a result, the procedure, confiscation and penalties for non-compliance could not be sustained, and the prior view of the same Bench in similar matters was followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether acetate yarn fell within the expression "synthetic yarn" in the notification issued under Chapter IVA so as to attract the procedure, confiscation and penalties for non-compliance.

Analysis: The liability for non-compliance under Chapter IVA was penal in nature. The notification referred to synthetic yarn and metalised yarn. A recognised textile dictionary treated synthetic yarn as a term loosely applied to man-made fibres and yarn, but not as covering rayon and acetate. Where the notification was ambiguous and the consequence of non-compliance was penal, the ambiguity had to be resolved in favour of the citizen. The prior view taken by the same Bench in similar matters was followed.

Conclusion: Acetate yarn was held to be outside the scope of synthetic yarn for purposes of the notification, and the confiscation and penalties could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the appellants obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal notification must be construed strictly, and any ambiguity in the coverage of the notified goods must be resolved in favour of the person proceeded against.

---