2002(02)LCX0082

IN THE CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI

S/Shri Gowri Shankar, Member (T) and G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Versus

MATTEL TOYS (I) LTD.

Order Nos. 774-75/2002-WZB/C-II, dated 22-2-2002 in Appeal No. C/76/97-Bom.

Advocated By :   Shri R.K. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Appellant.

Shri S.B. Patil, Consultant, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - Mattel Toys (I) Ltd., the respondent to this appeal, imported two consignments of goods for clearance to Mumbai. The bill of entry which was filed for clearance and the accompanying invoices prescribed the goods as follows :-

“Plastic toys

831 musical toys clock SKD pack

838 musical radio SKD pack.”

2. The department, after examination of the goods, was of the view that what was imported was complete toys in SKD condition. On its view that toys were consumer goods and import of consumer goods in SKD condition has also required a special import licence. Notice was issued to the importer proposing confiscation of the goods in the absence of such a licence and penalty on it.

3. While adjudicating on the notice, the Commissioner accepted the contention of the importer that the components contained in the imported consignment by themselves were insufficient to make complete toys, and that key, noise strip and sticker sheets for graphics would be required to form a complete toy. The toys were also required to be packaged. He also noted the submission made before him that the parts were subjected to some processes before it became toys in marketable form He found that the examination report did not indicate the basis on which it was concluded that the goods were complete toys or otherwise show what was being done was impermissible He therefore dropped the proceedings. This order is being appealed by the department.

4. The first ground in the department’s appeal is that the goods had been declared as musical toys in SKD pack and not as components of toys. We do not think that this small erroneous description by itself is sufficient to conclude what was imported was complete toys. What is required to be seen is not just a description, but what the goods were.

5. The next ground that the goods were assessed under Heading 9503.50 of the tariff which includes toys is by itself not conclusive that what was imported was complete components of toys. Components of toys are also to be classified under Heading 9503.50 as provided in note 3 to Chapter 95. The third ground, that the components which the importer had cleared were required to make complete toys “do not appear to be absolutely necessary for making toys complete and functional” is entirely without basis. There is no whisper of evidence in support of this claim and therefore it cannot be accepted. The next ground that the appraising staff concluded that the toys were complete presupposes an omniscience on the part of the appraising staff which we do not think is justified. If the word of the appraising officer is the last word on the subject, there would be no need to test this report by means of adjudication of another authority. This is apart from the fact that it has not been shown that the officer who examined the goods was an expert in toy making so that he should be able to conclude that they were complete toys.

6. On consideration of these aspects, we find sufficient ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. We would however add a note of caution. The fact that the goods were required to be packaged has no bearing in the matter. The toy is complete by itself without being packaged.

7. Appeal dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 2002 (144) ELT 0622 (Tri. - Mumbai)