2025 (7) TMI 356 - AT - Customs

Customs tribunal allows appeal on drone classification as recreational toys under Chapter 9503 instead of restricted aircraft

CESTAT Bangalore set aside confiscation and penalty orders for imported drones/UAVs. The appellant successfully argued that goods were classified under ... Confiscation - penalty - classification of imported Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) /Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)/ Drones during the relevant period - classifiable under Chapter Heading 88 of the Customs Tariff as per the Public Notice dated 07.10.2014 or not - restricted/prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the public notice dated 07.10.2014 issued by DGCA holds that the goods are restricted and also based on the N/N 16/2015-20 dated 27.7.2016 observed that prior clearance is required from the DGCA and also relies on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Jagdev Damodaram vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2017 (3) TMI 495 - KERALA HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that the Drones are restricted/prohibited and accordingly, upheld the decision of the original authority by confirming confiscation goods and imposition of the penalty. The appellant had placed on record similar products being imported from Mumbai during January 2018 to May 2018 without any restriction and also placed on record Bills of Entry cleared from ICD Whitefield Bangalore for similar imports classifying them under CH 95 without any restriction, these facts are not in dispute. From the Bill of Entry placed on record on which differential duty of Rs.8,91,535/- is demanded, the impugned products are classified under Chapter Heading 9503 0030 as recreational articles of plastics. The Public Notice dated 07.10.2014 reproduced above is with regard to use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)/ Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) for civil applications meant for both commercial and recreational use which are classifiable under Chapter Heading 8806 as rightly claimed by the appellant. Since, the Department has not disputed the classification of the impugned products as toys classifiable under CTH 9503, which is meant for persons of age 14 and above - It is also a fact that the Notification 16/2015-2020 dated 27.07.2016 introduced policy condition No.3 under chapter 88 of ITC, hence the goods classified under Chapter 9503 cannot be restricted as per the above policy condition. It is also to be noted that DGCA vide letter dated 14th September 2018 reproduced below stated that the Model Aircrafts are excluded from the proviso of DGCA Civil Aviation requirements. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:- Whether the imported goods, described as Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)/Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)/Drones, are prohibited or restricted under the existing legal framework governing import and civil aviation in India.- Whether the classification of the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9503 (toys and recreational models) as opposed to Chapter Heading 88 (aircraft and parts thereof) affects the applicability of restrictions and licensing requirements imposed by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).- Whether the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively, are justified in light of the classification and the relevant notifications and public notices.- The applicability and interpretation of the Public Notice dated 07.10.2014 issued by DGCA and Notification No.16/2015-2020 dated 27.07.2016 issued by DGFT regarding import policy and restrictions on UAV/UAS/drones.- The relevance of precedent, specifically the Kerala High Court decision holding drones as restricted/prohibited, and whether that applies to the goods under the classification in question.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Whether the imported goods are prohibited or restricted under the existing laws governing UAV/UAS imports.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The Public Notice dated 07.10.2014 by DGCA prohibits launch or operation of UAV/UAS in Indian civil airspace without prior approvals, citing safety and security concerns. It mandates that no non-government agency or individual shall launch UAS until regulations are framed. Notification No.16/2015-2020 dated 27.07.2016 by DGFT classifies import of UAV/UAS/drones under Chapter 88 as 'Restricted', requiring prior clearance from DGCA and import license from DGFT.The Kerala High Court decision cited upheld the restricted/prohibited status of drones under these frameworks.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal recognized the safety and regulatory concerns expressed by DGCA and the import restrictions imposed by DGFT under Chapter 88. However, it noted that these restrictions explicitly apply to goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 88 of the Customs Tariff.Key Evidence and Findings:The appellant imported goods classified under CTH 9503 (toys and recreational models), specifically under 9503 00 30 (of plastics), not under Chapter 88. The department did not dispute this classification. The appellant also produced evidence of similar goods imported at other ports without restriction.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal held that since the imported goods are classified under Chapter 95 (9503) and not Chapter 88, the restrictions and licensing requirements under Notification 16/2015-2020 and the Public Notice do not apply. The restriction is limited to Chapter 88 goods, and cannot be extended to goods under Chapter 95.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Revenue argued that the goods are prohibited and confiscation and penalty are sustainable relying on the Public Notice and Notification, as well as the Kerala High Court decision. The appellant countered that the restriction applies only to Chapter 88 goods and that the DGCA's press release and letter exclude model aircraft from these restrictions.The Tribunal gave weight to the undisputed classification and the DGCA's letter dated 14.09.2018 excluding model aircraft from DGCA civil aviation requirements.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods, being classified under Chapter 9503 as toys/recreational articles, are not restricted or prohibited under the existing laws and notifications that apply solely to Chapter 88 goods.Issue 2: Whether confiscation and penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, are justified.Relevant Legal Framework:Section 111(d) of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of goods if they are prohibited from import under any law. Section 112(a) provides for imposition of penalty for contravention of provisions of the Customs Act.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:Since the goods were not prohibited or restricted under the applicable import policy for their classification, confiscation and penalty could not be sustained.Key Evidence and Findings:The classification under Chapter 9503 was not disputed. The DGCA's letter excluding model aircraft from restrictions was relied upon. Also, similar goods were imported at other ports without restriction.Application of Law to Facts:Confiscation and penalty require violation of a prohibition or restriction. Since no such restriction applied to the goods classified under Chapter 9503, the imposition of penalty and confiscation was unwarranted.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Revenue's reliance on the Public Notice and Notification was countered by the appellant's evidence and classification. The Tribunal favored the appellant's position given the undisputed classification and official clarifications.Conclusions:The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty orders as unsustainable.Issue 3: Interpretation of classification and applicability of import restrictions under Customs Tariff Headings.Relevant Legal Framework:Chapter Heading 88 covers aircraft, spacecraft, and parts thereof, including unmanned aircraft. Chapter Heading 95 covers toys, games, and sports requisites, including model aircraft and recreational models.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The Tribunal emphasized that classification is a factual and legal determination that governs the applicability of import restrictions. Since the goods were classified under Chapter 9503, the import restrictions under Chapter 88 could not be extended to them.Key Evidence and Findings:The Bill of Entry classified the goods under 9503 00 30. The Department did not dispute this classification. The DGCA's letter excluded model aircraft from civil aviation restrictions.Application of Law to Facts:The Tribunal applied the import policy condition No.3 under Chapter 88 only to goods classified under that Chapter. It held that the appellant's goods, being under Chapter 95, are outside the scope of the restricted import policy.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Revenue argued that the nature of the goods as UAVs/drones brings them under the restricted category regardless of classification. The Tribunal rejected this, holding that classification governs applicability of restrictions.Conclusions:The Tribunal concluded that the import restrictions under Notification 16/2015-2020 apply only to Chapter 88 goods and not to goods under Chapter 95.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- 'Since the Department has not disputed the classification of the impugned products as toys classifiable under CTH 9503, which is meant for persons of age 14 and above... we do not find any reason to consider these articles of Chapter Heading 88 require any permission/license from the DGCA.'- 'The Notification 16/2015-2020 dated 27.07.2016 introduced policy condition No.3 under chapter 88 of ITC, hence the goods classified under Chapter 9503 cannot be restricted as per the above policy condition.'- 'DGCA vide letter dated 14th September 2018 stated that the Model Aircrafts are excluded from the proviso of DGCA Civil Aviation requirements.'- The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty orders, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.