Robot toys correctly classified under CTH-90230010 not toys; drone components confiscated without DGFT approval

The CESTAT Bangalore held that children's building robot toys imported for school demonstration purposes were correctly classified under CTH-90230010 rather than toys under CTH 9503, as quantity imported cannot determine classification. The authority allowed release of these goods for home consumption. However, regarding imported drone components, the tribunal upheld confiscation as drone imports are prohibited without DGFT approval and only permitted for recognized educational institutions. The appellant, not being a recognized educational institution, violated import restrictions. The appeal was partially allowed - robot toys were released while drone confiscation was upheld, though redemption for re-export to Qatar was permitted on payment of reduced fine of Rs. 25,000 and penalty of Rs. 10,000.

---

---

Issues involved: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH), liability for confiscation, request for re-export, appeal against the order of adjudication authority.

Classification of goods at Serial No. 1 to 3:
The appellant imported goods for educational purposes, specifically as teaching aids for smart education in schools. The Adjudication Authority classified the goods under CTH 9503 as toys, leading to confiscation. However, evidence presented by the appellant demonstrated agreements with schools for educational use, not recreational purposes. The Tribunal found the goods suitable for educational demonstration under CTH 9023, not as toys, and allowed their release for home consumption.

Import of drone at Serial No. 4:
The import of drones was subject to restrictions and required approval from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The appellant, not recognized as an educational institution by the government, imported a drone in violation of regulations. Despite the prohibition on drone imports for security reasons, the Tribunal allowed redemption of the drone for re-export to Qatar, acknowledging the delay and imposing a reduced redemption fine and penalty.

Decision:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the release of goods at Serial No. 1 to 3 for home consumption as teaching aids and upholding the confiscation of the drone at Serial No. 4. The appellant was permitted to redeem the drone for re-export to Qatar with reduced fines and penalties. The judgment was pronounced on 19.04.2024.

---