2001(08)LCX0327

IN THE CEGAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA

Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)

TOY PARK INTERNATIONAL

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

Order No. A-750/KOL/2001, dated 23-8-2001 in Appeal No. C-184/2000

Advocated By :   S/Shri R.K. Chowdhury and B.N. Pal, Advocates, for the Appellant.

Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants imported a consignment of toys in September 1997 and filed a bill of entry on 13-10-97 seeking clearance of the goods under the customs tariff Heading 9503.20, as toys of reduced size. They also submitted a Special Import Licence for clearance of the same. However, the customs authorities were of the view that the goods in question cannot be held to be toys of reduced size and the same are properly classifiable under customs Heading No. 9503.70 and IPC(HS) classification 950370.00 which attracts specific licence. Inasmuch as the appellant could not produce the licence to import the toys in question, the goods were seized with option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh fifty thousand). In addition a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) was also imposed under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The above view of the authorities below that the toys ‘put up in sets’ are properly classifiable under Heading 9503.70 is under challenge before us.

2. We have heard Shri R.K. Chowdhury, ld. Advocate and Shri B.N. Pal, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri A.K. Chattopadhyay, ld. JDR for the Revenue.

3. The appellants have taken a plea that the classification adopted by the Revenue is not correct inasmuch as the literature submitted by the appellants clearly indicated that the toys were nothing but ‘reduced size models’ and fell under Exim Code No. 9503.20. Shri Chowdhury has argued that the goods in question are kitchen items reduced in size and meant for promoting educational knowledge of the children and to get them to be acquainted with small replica of day to day usable goods. However, we find from the impugned orders as also from the catalogues presented by the appellant that the goods in question are kitchen items ‘put up in sets’. Such are properly classifiable under Heading 9503.70. There is no doubt that the said heading required a specific licence, which the appellants have not been able to produce. As such the goods have been rightly confiscated. However, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and the value of the goods being to the tune of Rs. 2.81 lakhs (approx) we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh fifty thousand) to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand). But for the above modification in the impugned order the appeal is otherwise rejected.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (149) ELT 0172 (Tri. - Kolkata)

Equivalent 2002 (049) RLT 0356