Imported goods misclassified as imitation stones, violating licensing requirements, face reduced penalty.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the classification of imported goods as imitation precious stones of glass, rather than glass beads as declared. The goods were found to violate specific licensing requirements under the 1985 Exim Policy, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The importer faced a reduced penalty of Rs. 15,000, down from Rs. 35,000, for misdeclaration of the goods.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as imitation/synthetic stone of glass or glass beads; Requirement of specific license for clearance under entry No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of 1985 Exim Policy; Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act; Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, comprising Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, considered the case where the authorities below classified goods as imitation/synthetic stone of glass in the form of pendants, not glass beads as declared by the importer. The import was deemed to violate entry No. 121 of Appendix 2 Part B of the 1985 Exim Policy, necessitating a specific license for clearance. The absence of such a license led to the goods being held liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, with the importer facing a penalty of Rs. 35,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of the goods in question. It was established that the goods were indeed imitation precious/synthetic stone of glass, specifically opal red and blue oval-shaped pendants with a glossy finish and a hole for hanging. These characteristics aligned more closely with the definition of imitation precious stone in the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) rather than glass beads, as glass beads are described in the HSN as small pierced balls, pierced at both ends, unlike the goods in question which were pierced only at one end for hanging purposes. Despite the appellants' argument that the goods were not tested for a high refractive index, as stated in the HSN for imitation precious stones, the Tribunal found that the goods' single pierced end and glossy finish were sufficient to classify them as imitation precious stones.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were indeed imitation precious stones and upheld the order of confiscation. Additionally, the goods were deemed liable for basic customs duty at 100%, auxiliary duty at 40%, and countervailing duty at 40%, as determined by the authorities below. The importer was also held responsible for misdeclaration of the goods, warranting a penalty. However, considering the circumstances of the case, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 15,000.

---

---