Import policy classification prevails over end use, sustaining confiscation of light fittings imported in SKD condition.

For import-control purposes, light fittings imported in SKD condition were treated according to their description under the import policy, not the importer's asserted end use. Because the goods fell within a restrictive entry for electric lamp and light fittings, they were held liable to confiscation for want of the prescribed licence. While confiscation was upheld, the redemption fine was reduced on the facts, and the penalty was set aside as unwarranted. The governing principle is that the policy description of the goods prevails over their intended use when determining importability under a restrictive entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether light fittings imported in SKD condition were restricted goods requiring a specific licence under the import policy, so as to justify confiscation; (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether light fittings imported in SKD condition were restricted goods requiring a specific licence under the import policy, so as to justify confiscation.

Analysis: The goods were described as electric lamp and light fittings falling under the relevant import policy entry. The fact that they were intended to be fitted to fans for marketability did not alter their character for import-control purposes. The classification under the policy depended on the description of the goods and not on the end use asserted by the importer. The authorities and the Tribunal distinguished the cases relied upon by the importer because those cases concerned manufacturing context and not the question of importability under a restrictive policy entry.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as restricted items, and confiscation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer were sustainable.

Analysis: Although confiscation was sustained, the Tribunal considered the circumstances of the case and found that the redemption fine required reduction. It also held that the penalty was not warranted on the facts.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was reduced and the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The import was held to be hit by the restrictive entry, but the monetary consequences were moderated by reducing the fine and deleting the penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: For import-control purposes, the character of the goods under the import policy description prevails over their intended end use, and goods expressly falling within a restrictive entry remain liable to confiscation for want of the prescribed licence.

---