2015 (11) TMI 375 - SC - Customs

Classification of goods - Bridges/Aerobridges - required to be used for the modernization of airport facilities - benefit of Notification No. 36/96-CUS dated 23.07.1996 and Notification No.11/97-CUS dated 01.03.1997 - Classification under Chapter Heading 8428,8430.80 and 4011.99 or under Chapter Heading 7308.10 - Held that - If the goods fall within the description as mentioned therein the classification may not be of any relevance, inasmuch as, Chapter Heading states 84 or any other chapter . Coming to the description of goods, landing equipments are specifically covered. Of course, in order to get the benefit of this Notification, the assessee is also required to satisfy condition no. 21 as mentioned therein For availing the benefit of the said Notification the assessee had produced certificate which was issued by the Regional Airworthiness Office of DGCA and the said Regional Airworthiness Office is the delegated authority of DGCA to issue such certificate. The assessee had thus fulfilled the condition laid down in Notification No. 36/96. To the same effect is the Notification No. 11/97-Part I. - conclusion of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under different Chapter Headings and eligibility for duty exemption under specific Notifications.

Classification Issue Analysis:
The appeal raised a question concerning the classification of goods imported by the respondent under various Bill of Entries. The assessee classified the goods under specific Chapter Headings, claiming duty exemption under Notification No. 36/96-CUS and Notification No.11/97-CUS. However, the Revenue contended that the goods should be classified differently, under Chapter Heading 7308.10 as 'Bridges and bridge-Sections'. The competing entries highlighted the divergence in classification, with the Department arguing for a different categorization than the assessee's claim.

Exemption Notification Analysis:
The Supreme Court analyzed the relevant exemption Notifications, particularly Notification No. 36/96-CUS, which covered specific goods for duty exemption when imported by the Airports Authority of India. The Court emphasized that the goods fell within the description outlined in the Notification, rendering the classification issue less significant. The requirement for the importer to produce a certificate from the Director General of Civil Aviation was addressed, confirming that the assessee had fulfilled this condition, as evidenced by the certificate issued by the Regional Airworthiness Office of DGCA.

Additional Notification Analysis:
The Court also considered Notification No.21/02-CUS, which further clarified the exemption for goods required for the development of airports. Entry 232 of this Notification exempted goods specified in List 20, which included 'Passenger Boarding Bridges(Aerobridges) along with associated Visual Guidance Docking Systems'. This specific mention of bridges/aerobridges as goods essential for airport development aligned with the description in the earlier Notification No. 36/96-CUS, reinforcing the eligibility of the imported goods for duty exemption.

Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the exemption Notifications and the alignment of the imported goods with the specified descriptions, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court found that the goods qualified for duty exemption under the relevant Notifications, rendering the classification dispute inconsequential. The judgment emphasized the fulfillment of conditions outlined in the Notifications and the specific treatment of bridges/aerobridges as essential goods for airport development, supporting the assessee's eligibility for duty exemption.