Strict construction of concessional duty notification denied benefit where goods were imported under a spare-parts licence, not for final-product use.

Concessional duty under Notification No. 232-CUS/83 was confined to components imported by an actual user industrially for use in the final product, and an import cleared against a licence for spares for after-sale service did not satisfy that user-condition. The licence produced at clearance was treated as determinative of the character and purpose of the import, so the bill of entry description could not override it. The demand was also found to be within limitation, and the concessional benefit was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the import of electronic components against a licence meant for spares for after sale service qualified for concessional duty under Notification No. 232-CUS/83.

Analysis: The goods were cleared by producing a licence specifically meant for spares for after sale service, and that representation was treated as determinative of the import purpose. Notification No. 232-CUS/83 granted concessional duty only to components imported by an actual user (industrial) for use as components in the final product. An import made against a spare-parts licence did not satisfy that condition, and the description of the goods in the bill of entry could not override the effect of the licence produced before customs. The demand was also found to be within limitation. The jurisdiction point was not pressed and was not examined.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the concessional benefit, and the duty demand was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption or concessional duty under a notification must be strictly confined to the class of imports and user-condition expressly specified in the notification, and the licence produced at clearance can ative of the character and purpose of the import.

---