Mobile phone front assembly components don't qualify for customs duty exemption under notification 9/2024

The AAR for Customs, New Delhi ruled on whether "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" qualifies as "FRONT COVER" for customs duty exemption under N/N. 9/2024-Cus. The AAR distinguished between the two terms, holding that Front Cover refers to the external protective panel covering the mobile's front face, while Assy Case Front encompasses the fully assembled front portion including integrated components like display screen, touch panel, and sensors. The AAR determined that duty-free import benefits under the notification are available only when the final manufactured product falls under HS Code 39 or 73, subject to IGCR Rules compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" can be named in lieu of "FRONT COVER" for customs duty exemption.
2. Whether HS Code 8517 79 90 can be used instead of Chapters 39 or 73 for customs duty exemption.
3. Whether the process undertaken for manufacturing "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" amounts to manufacture under customs rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Naming of "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" in lieu of "FRONT COVER":

The applicant sought clarification on whether the product "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" could be considered equivalent to "FRONT COVER" as listed under Serial No. 6D(ii) of Notification No. 9/2024-Customs for customs duty exemption purposes. The ruling clarified that the product "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" is distinct from the "FRONT COVER" as specified in the notification. The "Front Cover" refers to the external protective panel of a mobile device, focusing on aesthetic and protective aspects. In contrast, "Assy-Case-Front" includes the fully assembled front portion of the device, encompassing both structural and functional components. The ruling concluded that since the product description "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" is not mentioned in the notification, the duty exemption benefit under Serial No. 6E is inadmissible.

2. Use of HS Code 8517 79 90 instead of Chapters 39 or 73:

The applicant questioned whether they could use HS Code 8517 79 90 for the final product, instead of the specified Chapters 39 or 73, to avail customs duty exemption. The ruling stated that the notification specifically mentions Chapters 39 or 73 for the final product under Serial No. 6D. Since the applicant's product "Assy-Case-Front" would be classified under HS Code 8517 79 90, it does not qualify for the exemption, which is limited to products under Chapters 39 or 73.

3. Manufacturing Process of "ASSY-CASE-FRONT":

The applicant sought clarification on whether the process undertaken for manufacturing "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" on goods imported under the notification amounts to manufacture. The ruling noted that the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) is not mandated to provide rulings on whether a process amounts to manufacture. The authority can only issue rulings on matters specified under Section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, no ruling was provided on this question.

Conclusion:

The authority concluded that the applicant cannot avail customs duty exemption for "ASSY-CASE-FRONT" under the specified notification as it does not match the product description "FRONT COVER" nor falls under the specified HS Codes (Chapters 39 or 73). Additionally, CAAR does not have the mandate to rule on whether the manufacturing process qualifies as manufacture under customs rules.

---