Import control classification of stock and disposal lots failed where brand-new goods lacked evidence of disposal sale basis.

Imported shock absorbers were held not to be proved as stock lots or disposal lots because they were brand new, packed in original cartons and purchased from stockists. As the terms "stock lots" and "disposal lots" were not defined in the Import (Control) Order or Import Policy, the department had to establish that the goods were disposal goods on an "as is" or "where is" basis. Mere reliance on different sizes and low value was insufficient, and there was no evidence of wilful misdeclaration or value loading. The confiscation order was therefore not sustainable, and the Collector (Appeals)' order in favour of the assessee was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported shock absorbers could be treated as stock lots or disposal lots so as to attract the prohibition under Clause 5(3)(iii) of the Import (Control) Order and require a specific licence.

Analysis: The goods were found to be brand new, packed in original cartons and purchased from stockists. The expressions "stock lots" and "disposal lots" were not defined in the Import (Control) Order or the Import Policy. The burden lay on the department to establish that the goods were disposal goods, and the department produced no evidence of disposal on an "as is" or "where is" basis. Mere reliance on different sizes and low value was insufficient, and there was no charge of wilful misdeclaration or value loading.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not proved to be disposal goods, and the confiscation order was not sustainable. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---