Auxiliary duty exemption follows legal eligibility under the listed customs notification, not the importer's chosen exemption route.

Auxiliary duty exemption under Notification No. 207/87 depended on whether the goods were legally eligible for basic customs duty relief under a notification listed in its annexed table, not on whether the importer actually claimed that same notification. Because Notification No. 156/86 was one of the specified notifications and covered the imported paper-making machinery components without conditions, the legal availability of that exemption was sufficient. Choosing Notification No. 155/86 for a lower effective customs duty did not defeat auxiliary duty relief, and the denial of the exemption was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods eligible for partial exemption from basic customs duty under a notification specified in the table to Notification No. 207/87 could also claim exemption from auxiliary duty under that notification, even though the importer had actually opted for a different customs exemption notification.

Analysis: Notification No. 207/87 grants auxiliary duty relief to goods which are wholly or partially exempted from customs duty under a notification specified in its annexed table. The decisive test is eligibility to exemption under a specified notification, not whether the importer in fact claimed that very notification. Notification No. 156/86 was one of the notifications listed in the table to Notification No. 207/87, and it covered the imported paper-making machinery components without conditions. The fact that the importer chose Notification No. 155/86 for a lower effective customs duty did not take away the legal availability of Notification No. 156/86. The interpretation was also supported by the principle laid down in the cited Supreme Court decision that auxiliary duty exemption depends on the class of goods and the legal availability of the underlying customs exemption.

Conclusion: The importer was entitled to auxiliary duty exemption under Notification No. 207/87, and the denial of that benefit was unsustainable.

---