Customs exemption notification construed by its plain wording; mixed export and local production did not defeat the benefit.

An exemption notification for machines used in processing and manufacture of gems and jewellery for export was construed according to its plain wording. No requirement of exclusive or sole use for export production was expressed, so such a condition could not be read into the notification. Because some output produced with the machines was exported, the use requirement was satisfied even though part of the production was also sold locally. The exemption could not be denied on the basis of mixed export and domestic production.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of the customs exemption notification was unavailable merely because the imported machines were also used for some local production, despite part of the production being exported.

Analysis: The notification required the machines to be used in the processing and manufacture of gems and jewellery for the purpose of export. The wording did not contain any requirement that the machines be used solely or exclusively for export production. Reading such a limitation into the notification would amount to adding words that were not present. Where some of the output manufactured with the machines was exported, the machines were used for the purpose of export, even if part of the output was also sold locally. The department's reliance on an implied exclusivity condition was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The notification was satisfied and the exemption could not be denied on the ground of mixed export and local production.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the exemption notification was construed according to its plain language, without importing an exclusivity requirement that the text did not express.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied according to its wording, and a condition of exclusive or sole use cannot be read into it unless the notification expressly so provides.

---