Interpretation of "for use" in exemption notification: intended use suffices where no actual user condition is attached.

Poly vinyl alcohol imported under Heading A of Notification No. 45/94 was held eligible for exemption without proof of actual use in the leather industry. The Tribunal distinguished Heading A from Heading B and noted that the actual use undertaking, bond and certification requirements were expressly attached only to Heading B. Applying the settled meaning of "for use" as "intended for use," it held that an actual user condition could not be implied for Heading A. The imported goods were covered by Heading A, so the exemption remained available to the importer.

---

---

Issues: Whether poly vinyl alcohol imported under Heading A of Notification No. 45/94 dated 1-3-1994 was required to satisfy an actual use condition in the leather industry to qualify for exemption.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to goods imported for use in the leather industry. The judgment distinguished Heading A from Heading B and noted that the actual use undertaking, bond and certification requirements were expressly provided only for Heading B. Relying on the settled interpretation that the phrase "for use" means "intended for use" and not necessarily actual use, the Tribunal held that the absence of an actual user condition for Heading A could not be supplied by implication. The goods imported by the appellant were admittedly covered by Heading A, and the conference conclusion also supported availability of the benefit to traders where no actual user condition was attached.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 45/94 was available to the appellant, and proof of actual use was not required for goods falling under Heading A.

---