2008 (6) TMI 59 - AT - Customs

Import - goods have been received as gifts for free distribution to the needy and poor from U.K. Donor Organisation - there is no justification for denying the said imports on the ground that Visakhapatnam Port is not specified - As far as the conditions specified in Sl. No. 1 to the Table Notification No. 148/94-Cus. are concerned, there is no requirement of any specified port - When there are two different provisions, the one which is beneficial to the importer should be normally adopted

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of used clothes as gifts from a U.K. Donor Organisation.
2. Conditions of Notification No. 148/94-Cus regarding duty-free imports.
3. Requirement to import goods only through specified ports under bilateral agreements.
4. Dispute over the application of conditions to goods imported at Visakhapatnam.
5. Interpretation of Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 5 of the Table annexed to the Notification.
6. Previous instances of imports allowed under Sl. No. 1 at Visakhapatnam Custom House.
7. Justification for denying imports based on the specified port requirement.
8. Beneficial interpretation for the importer in case of conflicting provisions.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported used clothes as gifts from a U.K. Donor Organisation, fulfilling conditions under Notification No. 148/94-Cus for duty-free imports. The fulfillment of these conditions is undisputed, eliminating the need for further discussion on this aspect.

2. The issue arose regarding the requirement to import goods through specified ports under a bilateral agreement between U.K. and India for gift items. The Revenue authorities applied this condition to goods imported at Visakhapatnam, not initially a specified port. However, Visakhapatnam was later included. The appellant argued that Sl. No. 1 and Sl. No. 5 conditions were independent, citing past instances of imports allowed at Visakhapatnam Custom House under Sl. No. 1.

3. The Departmental Representative emphasized the need to respect the bilateral agreement conditions for imports from the U.K., supporting the legality of the impugned order.

4. The judgment considered the nature of the imported goods as gifts for free distribution to the needy, without discrimination. Previous instances of imports under Sl. No. 1 at Visakhapatnam Custom House were noted, indicating a precedent for such imports. The judgment concluded that as Sl. Nos. 1 and 5 were independent, there was no justification to deny the imports based on the specified port requirement.

5. In cases of conflicting provisions, the judgment highlighted the principle of adopting the provision beneficial to the importer. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, emphasizing the importance of a favorable interpretation for the importer in such situations.