2003 (1) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules in favor of importers in 'pocket brick games' classification case.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the importers in a case involving the classification of 'pocket brick games' under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 95.03. The ... Games - Pocket brick games - Valuation (Customs) Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading 95.03 or 95.04, Valuation of imported goodsClassification Issue Analysis:The case involved appeals regarding the classification of imported 'pocket brick games' under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 95.03 or 95.04. The importers claimed classification under CTH 95.03 to avoid Additional Customs Duty (CVD), while the Revenue argued for classification under CTH 95.04, which attracted CVD. The Tribunal examined the goods and found them to be hand-operated toys with no indication of being used for video games. The Tribunal agreed with the importers' claim under CTH 95.03, as the goods did not fit the description of articles for funfair, table, or parlour games under CTH 95.04. The Tribunal noted that various Commissionerates of Customs had consistently classified similar goods under CTH 95.03, supporting the importers' classification claim. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no CVD was payable by the importers for the goods classified under CTH 95.03.Valuation Issue Analysis:Regarding the valuation issue, the original authority had enhanced the value of the imported goods without providing a valid reason or supporting evidence. The lower appellate authority correctly identified this flaw and accepted the transaction value presented by the importers. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision on valuation, finding no grounds for interference. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision on valuation while setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) orders on the classification dispute. As a result, Appeal Nos. C/274 and 324/01 were allowed, while Appeal No. C/348/01 was dismissed. Additionally, the Revenue's application for stay was also dismissed in this judgment.