9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under specific headings. 2. Requirement of special import license for clearance. 3. Confiscation, fine, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. 4. Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalties. Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of imported goods under specific headings The appellants imported goods declared as electronic toys under a special import license. The department argued that the goods were consumer goods under Customs Tariff 95.01, requiring a specific import license. The Additional Commissioner classified the goods as battery-operated wheeled toys for children, not electronic toys, under Heading 95.01. The appellants claimed the goods were reduced size model assembly kits under Heading 9503.20. The Tribunal agreed the goods were electronic toys, not under Heading 95.01, but as the appellants failed to prove they were reduced size model assembly kits, a specific license was needed for clearance. Issue 2: Requirement of special import license for clearance The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation due to the lack of a specific import license for the goods. However, considering similar goods were previously cleared under special import licenses, the redemption fine and penalty in Appeal No. C/1294/1999-Mum. were reduced to Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively. Issue 3: Confiscation, fine, and penalty imposed In Appeal No. C/1295/1999-Mum., the goods were classified as toys and games not covered by a special import license, leading to confiscation, a fine of Rs. 2,30,000/-, and a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the confiscation due to the lack of a specific import license. However, considering past clearance of similar goods under special import licenses, the fine was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh and the penalty to Rs. 20,000/-. Issue 4: Appeal against the order of confiscation and penalties The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, maintaining the confiscation of goods due to the absence of a specific import license but reducing fines and penalties based on past clearance practices. The appellants' argument that the goods were educational or technical toys was dismissed as they failed to establish this claim, emphasizing the necessity of a specific import license for clearance of such goods.
|
