2002 (7) TMI 595 - AT - Customs

Imported goods resembling ballpoint pens not consumer goods at import under policy entry 156. Goods need further processing.

LINC PENS & PLASTICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., GOA

The Tribunal held that the imported goods, resembling ballpoint pens, did not qualify as consumer goods at the point of importation under policy entry ... EXIM Policy - Consumer goods in SKD/CKD - Ball point pens Issues:Import of goods resembling ballpoint pens, nature of imported goods, applicability of policy entry 156, processing of goods, classification as consumer goods.Analysis:1. The appellant imported a consignment containing various parts of ballpoint pens and filed a bill of entry for clearance. The custom house objected, stating that the goods constituted ballpoint pens and their import was prohibited under entry 156 of the policy. A notice was issued proposing confiscation and penalty. The Commissioner confirmed the confiscation with a redemption option and imposed a penalty. The appeal was filed against this decision.2. The representative of the appellant argued that the imported goods did not become finished ballpoint pens upon importation. Various processes were required, such as inserting tips, making holes, filling ink, and assembling parts, which involved machinery and skill. It was contended that the goods were not consumer goods at the point of importation, a point not considered by the Commissioner.3. The departmental representative claimed that the goods were ready to assemble in a completely knocked-down condition and supported the Commissioner's decision.4. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving similar goods and concluded that the processing required for the goods to become functional ballpoint pens was sophisticated and not comparable to simple assembly tasks. The goods were not considered consumer goods under entry 156 of the policy. The Tribunal noted that the difference in import under one bill of entry did not affect the applicability of the earlier decision's ratio.5. Considering the processes involved in making the goods functional as writing instruments, the Tribunal found that the goods did not directly satisfy human needs and therefore did not fall under the category of consumer goods as per policy entry 156. The appeal was allowed, and the previous order was set aside.