Import classification of tape deck mechanisms depends on whether electronic components create an excluded assembly under policy rules.

Imported tape deck mechanisms were treated in the import policy as electronic items eligible for OGL under Item 565(21) unless they fell within the exclusionary scope of Item 610 in Appendix 3, Part-A. Item 610, as amended from 6 June 1986, covered kits, ready-to-assemble sets, assemblies, sub-assemblies, modules and similar combinations of electronic items, but not every product merely containing some electronic components. Where the record showed printed circuit boards and connected parts, the true classification still had to be proved on proper evidence, preferably with expert examination, rather than by personal inspection alone. On that basis, the existing findings were insufficient to sustain confiscation and the matter required reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported tape deck mechanism was entitled to clearance under OGL under Item 565(21) of Appendix 6, List 8, Part-I of the Import Policy 1985-88, or whether it fell within Item 610 of Appendix 3, Part-A as an electronic assembly requiring a licence.

Analysis: The relevant policy entries treated tape deck mechanism as an electronic item and permitted its import under OGL unless it was covered by the exclusionary entries in Appendix 3, Part-A. Item 610, as amended with effect from 6-6-1986, applied to kits, ready to assemble sets, assemblies, sub-assemblies, modules and combinations thereof consisting of electronic items, but not to every item containing some electronic components. The record showed printed circuit boards and connected components, but there was no finding that the goods were an electronic equipment or system, nor that the presence of such components by itself converted the goods into an excluded assembly. The determination of the true nature of the item required proper evidence and, ideally, expert examination rather than a conclusion based only on personal inspection.

Conclusion: The confiscation order could not be sustained on the existing findings, and the matter required reconsideration by the Collector.

---