Complete pre-mutilation of imported rags accepted; confiscation and specific licence requirement were held unsustainable.

Imported synthetic rags were treated as completely pre-mutilated goods because the examination showed the garments had been cut into pieces with the top portion missing, and earlier Tribunal rulings had accepted goods cut into two or more pieces as sufficiently mutilated in the absence of a definite statutory test. The public notice relied on by the lower authorities could not govern the issue because it had been struck down. Applying the principle that ambiguity in the import policy should not be construed against the importer, the Tribunal held the goods were rags rather than worn garments, so confiscation and the requirement of a specific licence were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported synthetic rags were to be treated as completely pre-mutilated goods so as to negate confiscation and the requirement of a specific licence.

Analysis: The classification of the goods turned on whether the mutilation satisfied the accepted standard for completely pre-mutilated rags. The lower authorities relied on a public notice and a view that the goods could still be re-stitched or cleaned, but the notice had been struck down and could not govern the issue. The examination report showed that the garments were cut into pieces with the top portion missing, and the Tribunal's earlier decisions had held that, in the absence of any definite statutory test of complete mutilation, goods cut into two or more pieces were to be treated as sufficiently mutilated. The later Tribunal ruling in Saravanabava Mills, following earlier precedent and the principle that ambiguity in the import policy should not be used against the importer, supported acceptance of such goods as rags rather than worn garments.

Conclusion: The imported goods were held to be completely pre-mutilated rags, the confiscation was unsustainable, and the importer succeeded.

---