Case Law Details
Bubbly Balloons Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Chennai addressed the case of Bubbly Balloons versus Commissioner of Customs. This case revolved around the importation of balloons intended for party decorations, which were confiscated under the presumption that they did not conform to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration as required for toys. The tribunal’s decision to set aside the confiscation order marks a crucial clarification regarding the classification of decorative balloons and their exemption from certain regulatory requirements.
Bubbly Balloons, a proprietorship concern, imported various sizes of latex balloons, pumps, and decoration stands from Gemar Balloons, Italy, for party decoration purposes. The goods were initially classified under CTH 9503 as toy balloons based on an Analytics Report by the National Customs Targeting Centre, Mumbai. However, the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade’s Toys (Quality Control) Order 2020 requires that toys designed or intended for use by children under 14 years must conform to BIS standards, leading to the goods’ confiscation.
The appellant argued that the imported balloons, given their sizes and intended use for decoration, do not qualify as toys for children’s play. Furthermore, the Indian Standard IS 9873, which aligns with ISO 8124, explicitly excludes “holiday decorations that are primarily intended for ornamental purposes” from its scope. This argument challenges the application of the Toys (Quality Control) Order to the imported goods, suggesting that they should not require BIS registration.
The tribunal considered previous judgments and clarifications, including a significant clarification by the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, which stated that holiday decorations intended for ornamental purposes are not included in the Toys (Quality Control) Order’s scope. This clarification supported the appellant’s claim that the imported balloons, used solely for decoration, fall outside the purview of the said order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
