Customs exemption for aerobridges upheld where description and certificate requirements were satisfied despite tariff classification disputes.

Imported aerobridges and related spares were held to fall within customs exemption notifications covering navigational, communication, air-traffic control and landing equipment, as well as spares for maintenance, when imported by the Airports Authority of India. The precise tariff heading was immaterial because the notifications applied to goods described as falling under "84 or any other chapter" if the description and prescribed conditions were met. The required certificate from the delegated DGCA authority had been produced, and the record showed compliance with the exemption conditions. A later notification expressly referring to passenger boarding bridges and aerobridges reinforced that such goods were within the exemption scheme; the assessee therefore received the exemption benefit and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported aerobridges and related spares, notwithstanding the competing tariff classifications, were entitled to exemption under the relevant customs notifications.

Analysis: The goods were claimed to fall within the scope of notifications granting nil duty to navigational, communication, air-traffic control and landing equipment, and spares for their maintenance, when imported by the Airports Authority of India. The notifications covered goods under "84 or any other chapter", making the precise tariff heading immaterial if the description and the prescribed condition were satisfied. The required certificate had been produced by the delegated authority of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, and the record showed compliance with the exemption condition. A later notification also specifically described passenger boarding bridges and aerobridges as goods required for airport development, confirming the coverage of such goods under the exemption scheme.

Conclusion: The imported goods were covered by the exemption notifications and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption. The appeal failed.

---