2004 (7) TMI 205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts of the case, it is revealed that the subject car, which was imported by the appellants was held as liable to confiscation on the ground that import was in violation of provisions of Public Notice No. 3 (RE-2000)/1997-2002, dated 31st March, 2000 issued by the DGFT. It is stated in the impugned order of the Joint Commissioner that, - "the DGFT allows import of cars without a licence, to individuals coming to India for permanent settlement after two years' continuous stay abroad. It does not directly stipulate ownership of the vehicle by such individuals, but it contains a no sale condition for two years post-import which implies that such individuals should be owners of the car imported by them. The import of vehicles is thus restricte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ove. It is admitted in the order itself that, the Public Notice itself does not contain any specific requirement that the importer must be the owner of the car under importation. Despite this admission by proceedings in a round about way it has been concluded that, without such an ownership by the importer, it is not possible to comply with the post-importation condition stipulated in the Public Notice and hence the car import is in violation of Public Notice and consequently liable for confiscation. 5. It is a fairly settled law that the legal provisions have to be read with reference to the plain words used in the provisions. There is no scope to ascertain the intention behind the said provisions when the plain text of the law leaves n....