Family possession of imported car satisfied prior-use condition, making confiscation and penalty unsustainable.

Import benefit under the relevant public notice was interpreted pragmatically rather than in a strictly individualistic way. Where the appellant had lived abroad with her family, the car had been purchased by the husband, and it had been used and kept for the family, the authorities were treated as having erred in ignoring family possession and use. Since the remaining conditions of the public notice were satisfied, denial of the import benefit was considered unduly technical and harsh. The confiscation and penalty were therefore set aside in favour of the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported car and the penalty imposed on the appellant were sustainable when the car had been in the use and possession of the appellant's family abroad and the other conditions of the relevant import public notice were satisfied.

Analysis: The condition in ITC Public Notice No. 21/ITC(P.N.) 1992-97 requiring prior possession for one year was applied by the lower authorities in a strictly individualistic manner, treating only the appellant's personal possession as relevant. The facts, however, showed that the appellant was residing abroad with her husband and children as a housewife, the car had been purchased by the husband, and it had been kept and used for the family. In these circumstances, and in view of the satisfaction of the remaining conditions in the public notice, the denial of the benefit was treated as unduly technical and harsh.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not justified and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

---