Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether acrylic plastic scrap imported by the appellants was covered by the licence-free import provision in para 27(1) of the Hand Book of Procedures based on the Import Policy 1992 to 1997, or whether it fell within the restricted category requiring a specific licence under para 27(2).
Analysis: Para 27(1) permitted import without a licence of waste and scrap, while para 27(2) imposed a licence requirement on specified plastic wastes. The expressions "waste" and "scrap" were treated as different terms in their ordinary commercial sense and were not regarded as synonymous. The examination report described the goods as crushed scrap, and no positive evidence was produced to show that the imported goods were actually waste rather than scrap. In the absence of such evidence, the restricted entry was held inapplicable.
Conclusion: Acrylic plastic scrap was held to be importable without a licence, and the confiscation and penalty could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The import was treated as falling within the licence-free category for scrap, with the consequential adjudication against the appellants set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an import policy separately uses the terms "waste" and "scrap", those terms must be given distinct meanings, and goods shown to be scrap cannot be brought under a licensing restriction applicable only to waste in the absence of affirmative contrary evidence.