REP licence terms prevail over later import policy; customs cannot defeat expressly incorporated conditions by clarification.

REP licences expressly incorporating an earlier import policy are governed by that specific policy, not by a later general policy in force on the date of import. Where the licence conditions and general wording make the incorporated policy controlling, customs cannot substitute a later policy provision to defeat the licence benefit. An equivocal departmental clarification that does not answer the specific question, and which merely restates an obvious proposition, cannot override the licence terms. In the absence of material showing that the goods fell outside the licence coverage or prescribed value limit, the customs objection failed and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imports made under REP licences were governed by the import policy in force on the date of import or by the policy expressly incorporated in the licence. (ii) Whether the Customs authorities could rely on a later policy provision and a departmental clarification to deny the benefit of the licence.

Issue (i): Whether imports made under REP licences were governed by the import policy in force on the date of import or by the policy expressly incorporated in the licence.

Analysis: The licence conditions expressly made the imports subject to the restrictions and conditions of the earlier policy mentioned in the licence. The licence also contained a general condition that the policy in force would apply only unless otherwise specified. Since a specific policy was incorporated by reference, that specific stipulation governed the licence. The later policy provision relied upon by the department was not treated as controlling the licence terms.

Conclusion: The imports were governed by the policy specifically incorporated in the REP licences, not by the later policy generally in force on the date of import.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs authorities could rely on a later policy provision and a departmental clarification to deny the benefit of the licence.

Analysis: The departmental clarification did not answer the specific question posed and merely repeated an obvious proposition. The Tribunal also treated the Customs objection as an impermissible attempt to question the effect of the import licence. In the absence of material showing that the licence did not cover the goods within the prescribed value limit, the departmental reliance on the clarification and later policy failed.

Conclusion: The Customs authorities could not deny the licence benefit on the basis of the later policy or the clarification.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned customs order was set aside, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licence expressly incorporates a particular import policy or its conditions, that specific incorporation prevails over a later general policy position, and customs authorities cannot displace the licence on the basis of an equivocal departmental clarification.

---