Izi vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva - V on 21 April, 2026
3. During course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Counsel for the
appellant Mr. Ashwini Kumar submitted that Respondent
Department had applied Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for
Interpretation of Customs Tariff to hold the parts/components as
complete articles namely Drones, as imported items collectively
possess essential characteristics of finished articles and applied
prohibition contained in Notification No. 54/2015-22 that prohibits
the same from being imported but such a finding is contrary to the
judicial pronouncement made at this Tribunal‟s level in the case of
LML Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs reported in [1999 (105)
E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal)],against which the Department had preferred
Civil appeal before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that was dismissed,
as could be noticed from the order reported in [1999(107)ELTA-119]
and the said precedent decision, that attained finality with dismissal
of Department‟s appeal, was followed subsequently in series of
cases including K.R. Trading Company Vs. Collector of Customs,
Kolkata, reported in [1999(110) ELT 746 (TRI), Wipro Limited Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 1999(107) E.L.T. 398
(Tribunal)] as well as in Elsimate Electronics Industries Ltd Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in [2002(141) E.L.T.
126 (Tri-Chennai)] and therefore, the issue is no more res integra
that General Rules for Interpretation cannot be applied to Foreign
Trade Policy Matters. To him, such interpretation of Tariff Rules
would have been applicable only when components intended to
make a final product was presented at the same time for Customs
clearance but in the instant case goods have been imported in
multiple consignments and also cleared by Customs without any
one-to-one correlation.