2004 (3) TMI 99 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Notifications 204/84-Cus. and 205/84-Cus. concerning watch movements in disassembled condition.
2. Interpretation of "including partly assembled movements" under Sections 11B and 123 of the Customs Act.
3. Classification of SKD and CKD packs as parts of watches and their market usage restrictions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Notifications 204/84-Cus. and 205/84-Cus. concerning watch movements in disassembled condition:
The Customs Department argued that the watch movements in CKD condition seized from the respondent should be covered under Notifications 204/84-Cus. and 205/84-Cus., which pertain to "Watches, watch movements (including partly assembled movements), dials and cases for watches." The Tribunal, however, found that the seized goods were neither fully nor partly assembled watch movements but merely watch parts. The Tribunal held that the burden of proof that the goods were smuggled was on the Department, which it failed to discharge. The goods were not notified under Sections 11B and 123 of the Customs Act, thus the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent.

2. Interpretation of "including partly assembled movements" under Sections 11B and 123 of the Customs Act:
The Tribunal examined whether the seized watch parts could be classified as "partly assembled movements." It found that the seized goods did not include essential components like the "winding stem" and thus could not be considered as partly assembled movements. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were merely watch parts, which were not covered by the notifications under Sections 11B and 123. Therefore, the burden of proving that the goods were smuggled remained with the Department.

3. Classification of SKD and CKD packs as parts of watches and their market usage restrictions:
The Tribunal also considered whether the SKD and CKD packs were restricted to use by the importer as per Notification 43/85-Cus. The Tribunal found that the notification did not mandate that the importer must use the imported goods in its own factory. Instead, it required that the imported components be used in the manufacture of wristwatches, which could be done by the importer or any purchaser from the importer. Since the respondent had used the goods for manufacturing watches, there was no violation of the notification. Consequently, there was no ground for confiscation or levy of penalty.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings, rejecting the petition filed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Court agreed that the goods seized were merely watch parts and not covered by the relevant notifications under Sections 11B and 123 of the Customs Act. It also concurred with the Tribunal's interpretation of Notification 43/85-Cus., finding no requirement that the importer must use the imported goods in its own factory. Thus, the confiscation and penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority were not sustained. The petition was therefore rejected.

← Previous Next →