Exemption for amusement-park imports upheld where ownership and legal control were retained despite operational use by another entity.

Imported amusement-park equipment was held to satisfy the exemption conditions in Notification No. 133/91-Cus. because the importer retained legal ownership and substantial control, and the operating arrangement did not amount to a sale or complete divestment of possession. The phrase "parted with" was read with "sold" to mean surrender of ownership or legal possession, not every form of physical or operational use by another entity. On the stated facts, the importer's continuing interest through the shareholding and control structure meant the goods were not alienated, so denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported amusement-park equipment satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 133/91-Cus., dated 17 September 1991, particularly the requirement that the importer retain possession, control, and use of the goods and not sell or part with them for five years.

Analysis: The condition in the notification had to be read in the setting of the exemption granted for amusement-park equipment and in a practical manner. The importer retained legal ownership and substantial legal control over the goods, while the operating arrangement with the Indian company did not amount to a transfer of ownership or a complete divestment of possession. The expression "parted with" was read along with "sold", so that the prohibition was against giving up ownership or legal possession to another person, not against every form of operational or physical use by another entity. On the facts, the importer's interest in the goods continued through the shareholding and control arrangement, and the goods were not sold or otherwise alienated.

Conclusion: The notification conditions were satisfied and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---