Import policy ambiguity favours the importer where paper shredders are not clearly restricted consumer goods.

Paper shredders imported under the relevant Import Policy were not shown to be consumer goods requiring an import licence. The classification of consumer goods could not be expanded merely because photocopiers and fax machines appeared in the policy list, since similar inclusion did not automatically make every item analogous for import-control purposes. Ambiguity in the scope of restricted goods had to be resolved in favour of the importer, and earlier departmental clearance also weighed against coercive action. On that basis, confiscation and penalty were held unsustainable, and the importer obtained relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether paper shredders imported by the appellant were consumer goods requiring an import licence and whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The definition of consumer goods in the Import Policy was not treated as automatically matching every item listed as freely importable under that policy. The presence of photocopiers and fax machines in the policy could not, by itself, justify treating paper shredders as consumer goods. The reasoning emphasised that several items included in the policy list do not directly satisfy human needs without further processing, and that the wide use of photocopiers and fax machines does not make a paper shredder analogous to them for import-control purposes. In the circumstances, the ambiguity in the scope of consumer goods had to be resolved in favour of the importer, and the departmental practice of earlier clearance also weighed against confiscation.

Conclusion: Paper shredders were not shown to be consumer goods restricted for import, and the confiscation and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the importer obtained relief against confiscation and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Ambiguity in the import policy classification of goods must be resolved in favour of the importer, and a product cannot be treated as a restricted consumer good merely because other listed goods are somewhat similar.

---