Case Details: Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) Versus Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 27 Centax 94 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Manoj Misra, JJ.
- S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G., Rupesh Kumar, Ms Aarushi Singh, Udai Khanna, B. Ramaswamy, Advs., G.S. Makker & Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR’s, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Pawanshree Agrawal, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an importer of telecommunication networking equipment components, imported various modules, including line modules, controller cards, multiplexers, and optical modules. The customs authorities classified the goods under Tariff Item 8517.62.90 as ‘machines for reception, conversion, and transmission or regeneration of voice, images, or other data, including switching and routing apparatus.’ The importer contended that the goods were integral components to be fitted within networking equipment and should be classified as parts under Chapter Heading 8517.70.The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of the importer, determining that the imported goods did not function independently and should be classified as parts. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the goods were independent machines and, therefore, should be classified under Tariff Item 8517.62.90.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the imported goods were correctly classified under Chapter Heading 8517.70 as parts of telecommunication networking equipment. The Court affirmed that the components were designed to be fitted within the chassis of networking equipment and lacked independent functionality. The appeal filed by the Revenue was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner — (2024) 22 Centax 518 (Tri. – Mumbai) — Affirmed [Para 2]
