JUDGMENT - DEVADHAR J.P., J.:---In this petition, two orders passed by the Customs Authorities under section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 seeking to confiscate the imported 'Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride' have been challenged. By the impugned orders, the petitioners have been given the option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,65,000/- (Rs. 1,50,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-). 2. The facts relevant for the present petition are as follows :-- 3. The petitioners inter alia manufacture 'Oxytetracycline capsule' for which 'Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride' is a raw material. On or about the 3rd February, 1989, the petitioners entered into a contract with a foreign supplier for import of 1000 kgs. of 'Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride' (the 'said goods' for short). In April 1989, the foreign supplier airshipped 100 kgs of the said goods and on arrival of the said goods, the petitioners filed a bill of entry on 6-4-1989, seeking clearance of the said goods as OGL item, being raw material (not covered under Appendix 2, 3, 5 and 8) required for the manufacture of the drug 'Oxytetracycline Capsule'. Alternatively the petitioners claimed clearance of the said goods as drug intermediate under the Import Licence bearing No. 3192069 dated 27-11-1987 which licence was acquired by the petitioner from the market as it was freely transferable. 4. By a show cause notice dated 24-4-1989, the Custom Authorities called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the said goods should not be confiscated on the ground that the said goods were covered under Sr. No. 80 of the Appendix 28 of the Import Emport Policy April 1988-March 1991 ('Am 91 Policy' for short) and hence could not be imported as a OGL item or as a drug intermediate. By their reply dated 26-4-1989, the petitioners pointed out that what is covered in Sr. No. 80 of Appendix 28 is 'Oxytetracycline' whereas what is imported by the petitioner is 'Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride', which is a totally different item. It was pointed out that whenever the Government wanted that the salt of any particular item should be covered under Appendix 28, then the salt of that item was specifically included, for example in Appendix 28, the item at Sr. No. 38 (Doxycycline base, its hydrate/hydrochloride), Sr. No. 65 (Methaqualone base and methaqualone hydrochloride). It was pointed out that whenever the Government wanted that the salt of any particular item should be covered under Appendix 28, then the salt of that item was specifically included, for example in Appendix 28, the item at Sr. No. 38 (Doxycycline base, its hydrate/hydrochloride), Sr. No. 65 (Methaqualone base and methaqualone hydrochloride). It was contended that the item Oxytetracycline does not include Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride. Thereupon the Custom Authorities issued a supplementary show cause notice dated 12-5-1989 stating therein that in view of para 22(4) of AM 91 Policy the drugs appearing in appendices 2 part B, 3 part A 5 would also include its salt and, therefore, 'Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride' being a salt of 'Oxytetracycline', the same would be covered under Sr. No. 80 of Appendix 2-B of the Import Policy and in the absence of a specific licence the imported goods were liable for confiscation. By their reply dated 22-5-1989, the petitioners contended that the deeming provisions of para 22(4) of the Import Policy do not apply to the items covered under the OGL order. It was submitted that the Open General Licence No. 1/88 issued by the Central Government on 30-3-1988 in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has statutory force, whereas, the import policy has no statutory force and hence policy provisions which are not specifically incorporated in the OGL order cannot be read into the OGL order. Thus according to the petitioners the said goods could be imported as raw materials under the OGL order. Alternatively it was contended that the said goods being drug intermediate covered under Item 182 of Appendix 6, List 8 Part 1 of the AM 91 Policy could be imported under the additional licence acquired by the petitioners. Accordingly it was contended that the show cause notice issued against the petitioners be discharged. 5. The Additional Collector of Customs after hearing the petitioners passed the impugned order dated 14-6-1989 holding that the 'Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride' was an item covered under Item 80 of Appendix 2-B and could be imported only under a specific licence. It was held that since the imports were in contravention of the AM 91 Policy, the goods were liable to be confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. It was held that since the imports were in contravention of the AM 91 Policy, the goods were liable to be confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947. By the said order, the petitioners were given an option to redeem the goods under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 by paying redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/-. Challenging the said order the present petition has been filed. 6. While admitting the above petition, this Court permitted clearance of the goods on the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 15,000/- towards redemption fine. During the pendency of the petition, the balance consignment of 9900 kgs. of the said goods were imported which were also confiscated and the petitioners were given an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- Challenging the said order, the petitioners took out Notice of Motion No. 2299 of 1989 in this petition and this Court by its order dated 13-9-1989 permitted the petitioners to clear the said goods on the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. 7. Mr. Bulchandani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners brought to our notice judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Climax Chemicals v. R. Gopal Nathan)1, reported in 1991(52) E.L.T. 186, wherein it was held that the salt of Oxytetracycline was not included in Entry 43 of Appendix 4 of AM 1982-83 Policy and hence, its import was permissible under OGL order. In the light of the decision it was submitted that the importation of the said goods should be held to be in accordance with law. Mr. Bulchandani further submitted that under the Open General Licence (for short 'OGL') No. 1/88 dated 30-3-1988 issued under section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, the petitioners could import the said goods as raw materials required for the product manufactured by the petitioners. It was submitted that under the said OGL order all kinds of raw materials, components and consumable required by the actual user (Industrial) could be imported, except the items which are covered by Appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the AM 91 Policy. It was submitted that under the said OGL order all kinds of raw materials, components and consumable required by the actual user (Industrial) could be imported, except the items which are covered by Appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the AM 91 Policy. It was submitted that Entry 80 of Appendix 2 Part B of the AM 91 Policy refers to Oxytetracycline and not Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride which is a distinct and different commodity. Hence, it was submitted that the said goods being not covered under Appendix 2-B of the said Import and Export Policy, the petitioners were justified in importing the said goods, as OGL item. 8. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in the light of Condition Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the OGL Order No. 1/88, the petitioners as actual users (Industrial) could import items covered under Appendix 6 List 8 Part I and Part II of A.M. 91 Policy as OGL item. In other words the submission was that under OGL order 1/88, the petitioners could import Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride as drug intermediate covered under Entry 182 of Appendix 6 List Part I as OGL item in terms of Condition No. 22, 23 and 24 of the OGL order. Alternatively it was submitted that said goods could be imported under the additional licence acquired by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the additional licence purchased by them permits import of Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride, as drug intermediate falling under Item 24 of Appendix 6 List 8 Part II of the A.M. 88 Policy. Thus, according to the petitioners, the Customs Authorities were not justified in confiscating the said goods and therefore, the orders impugned in the petition are liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, contended that in view of Para 22(4) of the AM 91 Policy the entry 'Oxytetracycline' referred to in Item 80 of Appendix 2-B includes salts of Oxytetracycline i.e. Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride and hence the importation of the said goods was permissible only under a specific licence and not either under OGL order or under the additional licence purchased by the petitioners. It was submitted that the salts of the items specified in Appendix 2-B, could not be imported without a specific licence and hence the confiscation order with an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine was justified. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides and perused the record placed before us. The decision of this Court in the case of Climax Chemicals (supra) which is relied upon by the petitioners, in our opinion, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, on the date when the import licence was granted on 1-10-1981 there was no bar under the AM 82-83 policy for importation of salts of Oxytetracycline. It was only during the subsistence of the licence, a public notice dated 19th April, 1982 was published on 23rd April, 2002 seeking to amend the AM 82-83 Policy, to the effect that the drugs appearing in the appendices mentioned in the AM 82-83 Policy shall includes salts of the said drugs. In that context, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the public notice issued to amend the policy, subsequent to the issue of the licence cannot affect the importation of the goods under the licence already issued. The Import Export Policy April 1985 March 1988 ('AM 88 Policy' for short) as well as the AM 91 Policy clearly provide that the items falling under Appendix 2-B, 3-A and 5 shall include the salts of the drugs specified in those appendices. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in the context of the unamended AM 1982-83 Policy, is wholly distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case where the imports have been effected under the AM 91 Policy. 11. The next contention of the petitioners is that the OGL Order No. 1 of 88 dated 30-3-1988 (Exhibit 'A' to the petition) being issued under section 3 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has statutory force and, therefore, the petitioners could import the said goods as 'raw materials', under the OGL order irrespective of the policy provisions. 11. The next contention of the petitioners is that the OGL Order No. 1 of 88 dated 30-3-1988 (Exhibit 'A' to the petition) being issued under section 3 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has statutory force and, therefore, the petitioners could import the said goods as 'raw materials', under the OGL order irrespective of the policy provisions. In this context, it will be proper to refer to the OGL order dated 30-3-1988 itself, which permits import of raw materials, components and consumable inter alia subject to the condition that--- "The items to be imported are not covered by appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 of Import and Export Policy for 1988-91 (Volume 1) as amended from time to time by issue of a public notice in the Official Gazette." When the OGL order itself states that the permission granted therein to import raw materials as OGL items shall be subject to the items specified in the Appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the Import and Export Policy for 1988-91, it will not be open to the petitioners to contend that the import policy has no statutory force and should be ignored. As held by the Apex Court in the case of (Glass Chatons Importers and Users Association v. Union of India)2, reported in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1514, policy as regards imports forms an integral part of the general economic policy of a country which is to have due regard not only to its impact on the internal or international trade of the country but also on monetary policy, the development of agriculture and industries and even on the political policies of the country involving questions of friendship, neutrality or hostility with other countries. Therefore, even though, the OGL order is issued under section 3 of the Imports Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the items permitted to be imported under the OGL order, is as per the economic policy decision taken by the Government. The policy decision taken by the Government regarding imports is contained in the Import Policy issued from time to time. In the instant case, even the OGL order clearly states that the raw materials permitted for import under the OGL order are those raw materials which are not covered under Appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the AM 91 Policy. In the instant case, even the OGL order clearly states that the raw materials permitted for import under the OGL order are those raw materials which are not covered under Appendices 2, 3, 5 and 8 of the AM 91 Policy. In other words, the OGL Order 1 of 1988 clearly postulates that the items covered under Appendix 2, 3, 5 and 8 of AM 91 Policy cannot be imported as OGL item under the OGL Order 1 of 1988. 12. The question then to be considered is, whether Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride' is covered under Entry 80 of Appendix 2-B of the AM 91 policy?. Chapter II of the AM 91 Policy deals with General licensing matters. Para 22(4) contained in Chapter II of the AM 91 Policy reads as under :- "22(4). In the case of drugs appearing in Appendices 2 Part B, 3 Part A and 5, the names mentioned are as they are commonly known, and each entry includes the salt, esters and complexes of the same drug, as well as its active ingredients." Thus, the meaning and scope of any item set out in Appendix 2-B, 3-A and 5 includes the salts of those items. It was open to the Government to specifically set out salts of each item under Appendix 2-B, 3-A and 5 of the policy. Instead, in para 22(4) of the policy it was provided that the items set out in Appendices 2-B, 3-A and 5 shall include its salt. In our opinion, the fact that, in some cases, like Items 38, 64, 65 etc. of Appendix 2-B, the item as well as the salt of that item is specifically included in Appendix 2-B will not make any difference. Once the policy clearly states that the items in Appendix 2-B, 3-A 5 shall contain its salt, then, it cannot be said that only those salts which are specifically set out would be covered under Appendix 2-B, 3-A 5 of AM 91 Policy. If the construction put forth by the petitioners is accepted, then, it would render para 22(4) of the policy nugatory. Such a construction which will render the policy provisions nugatory cannot be accepted. If the construction put forth by the petitioners is accepted, then, it would render para 22(4) of the policy nugatory. Such a construction which will render the policy provisions nugatory cannot be accepted. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride (Salt of Oxytetracycline) was covered under Entry 80 of Appendix 2-B of the Am 91 Policy and, therefore, it could not be imported as raw materials under the OGL Order 1 of 1988. 13. The second limb of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that in view of condition number 22, 23 and 24 of the OGL Order 1 of 1988, the petitioner as actual user (Industrial) could also import drug intermediates falling under Item 182 of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I of Import and Export Policy 1988-91 as OGl item. The submission was that the Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride was a drug intermediate for the manufacture of Oxytetracycline capsule and, therefore, in terms of Condition No. 22, 23 and 24 of the OGL Order, the petitioners could import the same as OGL item under OGL Order No. 1 of 1988. There can be no dispute that drug intermediates appearing in Appendix 6 List 8 Part I of the AM 91 Policy could be imported as OGl item under OGL Order 1 of 1988, provided, as set out in condition number 1 of the OGL order, the said drug intermediate was not covered under Appendix 2-B of the AM 91 Policy. In other words, under the OGL order, only such drug intermediates could also be imported as OGL item which are not covered under Appendix 2-B of the Import Policy. In the instant case, once it is held that Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride was covered under Appendix 2-B of AM 91 Policy, it could not be imported by the Actual user (Industrial) as OGL item. 14. The alternative argument of the petitioners that the goods in question could be imported as drug intermediate covered under the additional licence acquired by the petitioners is also without any merit. In this context we may refer to the note appended at the end of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I and II of the AM 91 policy which reads as under : "1) It is clarified that entries in this list (Part I and II) allow only those items and their specifications, sizes, types, varieties, compositions, categories etc. In this context we may refer to the note appended at the end of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I and II of the AM 91 policy which reads as under : "1) It is clarified that entries in this list (Part I and II) allow only those items and their specifications, sizes, types, varieties, compositions, categories etc. as are covered under Open General Licence for actual users (Industrial) vide Items 1 and 2 of Appendix 6 i.e. the items or their specifications etc. which do not appear in Appendices 2 to 5 and 8, including those having another chemical name or synonym, but of the same nature, as any of the items covered in these appendices, read with the clarifications contained in Chapter II of this book." From the aforesaid note appended to Appendix 6 List 8 it is clear that the importation of the items set out therein are subject to the bar contained in Appendices 2 to 5 and 8 read with the clarification contained in Chapter II of the AM 91 Policy. As stated herein above, Para 22(4) contained in Chapter II of the AM 91 Policy specifically provides that the drugs appearing in Appendix 2 Part B, 3 Part A and 5 shall include salts of the said drug. Thus, the note appended to Appendix 6 List 8 of the AM 91 Policy clearly provides that the drug intermediates covered under Appendix 6 List 8 Part I shall exclude the drug intermediates covered under Appendix 2-B of AM 91 Policy. Since, Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride, a drug intermediate, is covered under Item 80 of Appendix 2-B of the AM 91 Policy, it could not be imported either as OGL item or as a drug intermediate falling under Appendix 6 List 8 of the AM 91 Policy. Even the additional licence procured by the petitioners from the open market does not enable them to import the goods in question. The endorsement made on the additional licence purchased by the petitioners entitles them to import items appearing in Part I and Part II of List 8 of Appendix 6 of AM 88 Policy. Even the additional licence procured by the petitioners from the open market does not enable them to import the goods in question. The endorsement made on the additional licence purchased by the petitioners entitles them to import items appearing in Part I and Part II of List 8 of Appendix 6 of AM 88 Policy. By virtue of para 22(4) of AM 88 Policy, Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride (Salt of Oxytetracycline) was included in Item 66 of Appendix 2-B of AM 88 Policy and hence, the said goods could not be imported as drug intermediate covered under Item 24 of Appendix 6 List 8 Part II of the AM 88 Policy. Moreover, even under the AM 88 Policy the note appended to Appendix 6 List 8 Part II, clearly provides that the items covered under Appendix 2-B cannot be imported as an item falling under Appendix 6 List 8 of AM 88 Policy. Therefore, even under the additional licence purchased by the petitioners, Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride could not be imported as drug intermediate falling under Appendix 6 List 8 Part II, as the same was covered under Appendix 2-B of AM 88 Policy. Under the AM 88 Policy as well as under the AM 91 Policy importation of Oxytetracycline Hydrochloride required specific licence and it could not be imported as OGL item or as item falling under Appendix 6 List 8 of the respective policy. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Customs Authorities were justified in confiscating the goods imported by the petitioners as the importation was in violation of the import policy. The petitioners have exercised option of redeeming the goods on payment of redemption fine and have obtained clearance of the goods under the interim orders of this Court, by furnishing bank guarantee to the extent of redemption fine levied. As we have upheld the order of confiscation, the respondents shall be entitled to recover the amount of redemption fine with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of clearance of the goods till date. 16. Accordingly, the petition fails. Rule stands discharged. The respondents are at liberty to encash the bank guarantees for the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners shall pay to the respondents, interest on the said sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- from the date of clearance of goods till date @ 12% p.a. by 31-12-2002. 16. Accordingly, the petition fails. Rule stands discharged. The respondents are at liberty to encash the bank guarantees for the sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- furnished by the petitioners. The petitioners shall pay to the respondents, interest on the said sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- from the date of clearance of goods till date @ 12% p.a. by 31-12-2002. If the petitioners fail to pay the said amount of interest by 31-12-2002, then the said amount of interest shall be recoverable from the petitioners with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1st January, 2003 till the date of recovery. 17. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. 18. At this stage the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner requested to issue directions to the revenue not to enforce the bank guarantee for the period of eight weeks. Accordingly, we direct the revenue not to encash the bank guarantee for the period of eight weeks from today. Certified copy expedited. Petition fails. -----