9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Correct classification of aerobridges imported by M/s. Airport Authority of India in 1997 under Customs Tariff - Chapter Heading 8428 or 7308. Analysis: The dispute revolves around the classification of aerobridges imported by M/s. Airport Authority of India in 1997. The Airport Authority claimed classification under Chapter Heading 8428 of the Customs Tariff, while the Customs authorities disagreed and classified the item under heading 7308. The main issue is to determine the correct classification of the aerobridges. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that aerobridges function like a bridge between aircraft and airport terminal, thus classifying them under heading 7308.10 ("bridges and bridge-section"). The Commissioner relied on Rule 3 of the interpretation of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, stating that the classification as "bridges and bridge-section" provides the most specific description for the item compared to the general description under heading 8428. The appellant argued that aerobridges are sophisticated machines comprising electrical and electronic parts, working on hydraulic, electrical, and electronic principles. They contended that aerobridges cannot be classified under heading 73, as it covers complete or incomplete metal structures made from metal bars, rods, tubes, angles, etc., and not sophisticated machinery. Additionally, the appellant highlighted that heading 8428 covers a wide range of machinery for mechanical handling of goods, which aligns more with the nature of aerobridges. Moreover, the appellant pointed out that aerobridges imported at other locations were cleared as machinery under Chapter 84, emphasizing consistency in classification practices. They referenced a ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their argument. The Tribunal noted that Chapter 73 of the Tariff pertains to "articles of iron or steel," consisting of simple articles made from iron and steel without machinery or prime movers. In contrast, Chapter 84 covers machinery and mechanical appliances, indicating a clear distinction in the classification scheme. The Tribunal concluded that the order of classification by the Commissioner (Appeals) was contrary to the Tariff's scheme and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the Airport Authority of India. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the specific characteristics and functions of aerobridges, the interpretation of relevant Tariff headings, consistency in classification practices, and the overall scheme of the Tariff in determining the correct classification of the imported aerobridges.
|
