When Is End-Use Relevant in Customs Tariff Classification?

 

Summary

Category Data
Court Supreme Court of India
Case Number C.A. No.-005531 – 2025
Diary Number 53645/2024
Judge Name HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
Bench HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Precedent Value Binding authority
Overrules / Affirms Overrules CESTAT’s decision in Customs Appeal No. 50542/2021; Affirms application of GRIs and Dunlop India principle
Type of Law Customs tariff classification
Questions of Law
  • Whether aluminium shelving imported for mushroom cultivation should be classified under CTI 76109010 as “aluminium structures” or under CTI 84369900 as “parts” of agricultural machinery?
  • Whether “end-use” or “adaptation” of imported goods is a permissible classification factor absent any reference in the tariff entry?
Ratio Decidendi The Court held that classification disputes under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 must begin with GRI 1, giving primacy to the heading and notes. “End-use” can only be considered when the tariff entry explicitly or inherently refers to use or adaptation; incidental or actual use is irrelevant. Explanatory Notes aligned with the tariff were binding. Common-parlance tests apply only in statutory silence. Aluminium shelves meet the criteria for “structures” under CTI 76109010 and do not qualify as “parts” of agricultural machinery under CTI 84369900.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Dunlop India Ltd v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 241
  • Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v. Union of India (1985) 3 SCC 284
  • Indian Tool Manufacturers v. CCE (1994 Supp 3 SCC 632)
  • Collector of Customs v. Connaught Plaza Restaurant (2012) 13 SCC 639
  • Madhan Agro Industries v. CCE (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3775)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon
  • Sequential application of GRIs 1–4
  • Binding effect of HSN Explanatory Notes where aligned with domestic entries
  • Limited scope of common-parlance test
  • “Use” criterion only if entry refers to use/adaptation (Dunlop India)
  • Objective characteristics determine intended use
Facts as Summarised by the Court M/s Welkin Foods imported aluminium shelving for mushroom cultivation and declared it under CTI 84369900 (parts of agricultural machinery) at nil duty. Revenue audit reclassified the shelves under CTI 76109010 (aluminium structures) attracting ~29.5% duty. CESTAT allowed the importer’s appeal, treating the shelves as agricultural machinery parts. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the proper classification and the relevance of end-use.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All customs authorities, CESTAT, High Courts
Persuasive For Other High Courts, administrative tribunals
Overrules CESTAT’s Judgment and Final Order No. 55604/2024 in Customs Appeal No. 50542/2021
Distinguishes CESTAT’s non-sequential application of GRIs and its expansive end-use classification
Follows Dunlop India Ltd v. Union of India; Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd v. Union of India

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • Clarifies that “end-use” or “adaptation” is irrelevant for classification unless the tariff entry itself explicitly or inherently refers to use.
  • Reaffirms that GRI 1 (primacy of headings and notes) must be the starting point in all HSN classification disputes.
  • Limits the common-parlance test to situations of statutory silence or ambiguity; cannot override explicit legislative text or technical terms.
  • Recognises HSN Explanatory Notes as binding guidance when aligned with domestic tariff entries, per Madhan Agro.
  • Confirms that “machinery” in Section XVI cannot be extended to “plant” via Section Note 5 unless expressly provided in the tariff heading.
  • Demonstrates that aluminium shelves, though custom-made for integration, remain “structures” and not “parts” of machinery.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  1. Classification under Customs Tariff Act requires sequential application of GRIs 1–4, starting with GRI 1 (heading and notes).
  2. HSN Explanatory Notes, when aligned with domestic entries and absent contrary legislative intent, are binding.
  3. Common-parlance and trade-parlance tests apply only where tariff entries lack definition or technical terms and statutory context is silent.
  4. “Use” is a relevant factor for classification only if the heading or notes explicitly/inherently refer to “use” or “adaptation” (Dunlop India).
  5. Chapter 76 (Aluminium structures) is an eo-nomine provision covering all aluminium structures; shelves meet “structure” criteria per Explanatory Notes.
  6. Section XV Note 1(f) excludes Section XVI articles from Chapter 76; therefore if goods lawfully fall under Chapter 84 they cannot be in Chapter 76.
  7. Chapter 84.36 (agricultural machinery) is eo-nomine but use-inherent; however, it requires “machinery” whose principal use is agricultural. Shelves are not machinery.
  8. “Parts” must be integral to machine function; aluminium shelves merely support machinery and are not constituent parts.
  9. Conclusion: shelves classifiable under CTI 76109010; CESTAT’s CTI 84369900 classification overturned.

Arguments by the Parties

Appellant (Commissioner of Customs)

  • Classification determined at import under “as-imported” principle; end use irrelevant where heading lacks reference to “use”.
  • Shelves lack moving parts or mechanical function; cannot be “machinery” or “parts” of machinery.
  • Objective structure characteristics (bars, plates, welding, permanence) fit the definition of “structures” under CTI 76109010.
  • Common-parlance and functional-test misapplied; reliance on brochures and importer’s business profile is extraneous.

Respondent (M/s Welkin Foods)

  • Section XVI Note 5 defines “machine” broadly to include plant and apparatus; shelves integral to mushroom-growing plant.
  • Note 1(f) to Section XV excludes Chapter XVI goods from Chapter 76; agricultural machinery parts must go to Chapter 84.
  • GRIs and specific tests favour more specific heading (84 over 76); “parts” include any item essential to overall apparatus.
  • End use and trade parlance (“mushroom growing racks”) justify CTI 84369900 classification; reliance on trade certificates.

Factual Background

M/s Welkin Foods imported aluminium shelving, a floor drain, and an automatic watering system for mushroom cultivation and declared all under CTI 84369900 at nil duty. Revenue audit reclassified the shelving under CTI 76109010 as aluminium structures, raising ~INR 21 lakh duty demand. CESTAT held that the shelves are parts of agricultural machinery (CTI 84369900) based on end use and trade parlance, allowing the appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to resolve if “end-use” is a valid classification criterion and to determine the correct heading.

Statutory Analysis

  • Section 12(1), Customs Act 1962: Duties levied at rates in Customs Tariff Act 1975.
  • First Schedule, Customs Tariff Act 1975: Sections XV (Base metals) and XVI (Machinery); Chapters 76 and 84.
  • General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs) 1–6: Sequential application; GRI 1 primacy of headings/notes, GRI 3 tie-breakers.
  • Section XV Note 1(f): Excludes Section XVI articles from Section XV.
  • Section XVI Notes 2–5: Rules for parts classification, composite machines, functional units, and definition of “machine.”
  • HSN Explanatory Notes: Binding if aligned; definitions for “structures” (Chapter 76) and grouping by field of industry (Chapter 84).

Alert Indicators

  • Precedent Followed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.