Per J.H. Joglekar: This appeal arises out of order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 29.1.85. The short facts of the case are that the appellants imported printed circuit boards against an additional licence valid for import of goods falling in Appendix 5 and appendix 7 of AM 84 Policy. The goods on examination were found to be populated/loaded printed circuit boards. The lower authority held that these were covered by Entry No. 564 and 576 of Appendix 3 A of the said policy and also that the subject goods were covered by entry No. 100 of Appendix 2-B. He held that the goods were not covered by the Import Licence. He confiscated the goods but permitted their redemption on a fine of Rs. 90,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal.

2. Shri Inder Kumar Panj wani, Proprietor appearing for the appellants drew our attention to Entry No. 564of Appendix 3A and claimed that it had no relevance to the impugned goods. Referring to entry No. 564 of the said Appendix, he claimed the goods imported by him were sub-assembly and were permissible imports. He denied that the goods imported were hit by Entry No. 576 of Appendix 3 A. He claimed that the licence produced by him was sufficient to cover the importation and therefore, the order leading to confiscation was wrong.

3. He claimed that they had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 232/83 for clearance of the goods which had not been granted. Referring to the quantum of fine, he claimed that they were not sellers of the item but were actual manufacturers. Before the original authorities, they had produced documents and returns filed by them before the Central Excise authorities. In view of the fact that they were actual manufacturers, relief was claimed.

4. Shri M. Ali, Id. DR appearing for the Revenue distinguished between the imported goods and plain printed circuit boards. He claimed that the printed circuit boards were covered into populated boards by adding certain components like transformers, electric compressors etc. After such additions, the board is no longer a new printed circuit-board. He further claimed that the populated circuit board could not be termed as sub-assembly unless it was connected or fitted with other plastic components or other mechanical components. Arguing on the adequacy of the licence, he stated that the licence covered goods listed under Appendices 5 and 7 only and was not valid for importation for items listed under Appendix 3 A. He also argued that the licence was not transferable. Ld. DR claimed that the goods were covered by Appendix 2B. Ld. DR drew attention to Note no. 4 in Chapter 85 and claimed that the term "printed circuits" did not cover circuits combined with elements other than those obtained from the printing process. He stated that the present goods therefore, are not covered under the benefit of notification No. 232-Customs dated 18.8.93 as the entry No. 2 in the table annexed with the said notification read as "printed circuits and printed circuit boards".

5. We have carefully gone through the facts before us and the arguments made. There is no doubt that the goods imported were populated printed circuit boards and not plain printed circuit boards. This is stated in the first paragraph of the order in original and has not been effectively rebutted by the appellants. The appellants are seeking coverage of the goods under entries in Appendix 3A. The relevant entries are general in terms and cover sub-assemblies. Ld. DR has distinguished between populated circuit boards and sub-assemblies and has shown that entries in Appendix 3 A would not cover the goods imported. On the other hand, the description under entry at S.No. 100 in Appendix 2B is very specific that is, populated/loaded/printed circuit boards. The entry which has a specific description is to be preferred over a general entry. On perusal of the entry, it is clear that at the material time, the import of the subject goods was prohibited. The licence itsel