Customs classification under Rule 2(a) failed where imported mobile phone parts lacked the essential character of complete handsets.

Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation did not support classifying the imported consignments as complete mobile phones. The goods were found to have been imported in disassembled or unassembled condition, and the Chartered Engineer's reports showed that battery, camera, software, testing and other processes were still required before a finished handset could exist. On the record, the material did not establish that the imports possessed the essential character of complete mobile phones. In a classification dispute, the burden remained on the department to justify reclassification, and that burden was not discharged. The goods therefore remained classifiable as mobile phone parts rather than complete phones.

---

---

Issues: Whether rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 applied so as to treat the imported parts as complete mobile phones and classify them under CTI 8517 14 00/8517 12 19 instead of as mobile phone parts.

Analysis: The imported goods were examined along with the Chartered Engineer's reports, which stated that the consignments were received in disassembled or unassembled condition and formed incomplete mobile phones. The reports also indicated that battery, camera, software, testing, and other processes were still required, and they did not conclusively establish that the goods, as imported, possessed the essential character of complete mobile phones. In a classification dispute, the burden lay on the department to prove the proposed reclassification, and the impugned order incorrectly shifted that burden onto the importer. The material on record was insufficient to show that the goods were complete mobile sets falling within rule 2(a).

Conclusion: Rule 2(a) did not justify reclassification of the imported goods as complete mobile phones, and the appellant succeeded on the classification issue.

---