2006 (5) TMI 353 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Notification No. 1/64-Cus regarding country of origin disclosure on imported bottles and caps.
2. Allegation of imported bottles being consumer goods requiring a specific license.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Notification No. 1/64-Cus
The case involved the import of bottles and caps for cosmetic packaging under the trade name "aviance" without indicating the country of origin, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation under Section 111(d). The appellants argued that the deletion of condition No. V by Notification 61/2000 made the requirement of mentioning the country of origin non-mandatory, citing the Tribunal's decision in Rochi Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal held that the deletion was clarificatory and retrospective, thus no violation of Notification No. 1/64 occurred.

Issue 2: Allegation of imported bottles being consumer goods
Another ground for seeking confiscation was that the bottles were considered consumer goods under ITC (HS) requiring a specific license. The appellants contended that the bottles by themselves were not consumer goods as they needed to be filled with cosmetics to become items of consumption. Reference was made to the decision in Commr. of Cus., Nhava Sheva v. Dujodwala Resins & Terpenes Ltd., emphasizing that goods used in industry, even if capable of being consumer goods, should not be classified as such. The Tribunal agreed that the bottles, used for filling cosmetics, were for industrial use and not consumer goods, aligning with the precedent set in the Dujodwala Resins case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities' order based on the findings that there was no violation of Notification No. 1/64-Cus regarding the country of origin disclosure and that the imported bottles were not consumer goods but intended for industrial use in filling cosmetics.