Concessional customs duty for machine parts must follow only the notifications expressly incorporated in the exemption scheme.

Notification No. 155/86-Cus. allowed a reduced customs duty rate for parts used in manufacturing goods under headings 8432 to 8443, but its Explanation confined the reference rate to the complete article rate under the First Schedule read with only the notifications expressly incorporated. Notification No. 59/87-Cus. was specifically included, while Notification No. 114/80-Cus. was not. For parts of web fed offset rotary printing machines classifiable under heading 8443.11, the applicable concessional rate had to be derived only from the incorporated rate and then reduced by 10% ad valorem, resulting in duty at 25% ad valorem and excluding reliance on Notification No. 114/80-Cus.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported parts of web fed offset rotary printing machines were entitled to the concessional customs duty rate under Notification No. 155/86-Cus. by taking the complete machine rate under Notification No. 114/80-Cus. instead of the rate specified by Notification No. 59/87-Cus.

Analysis: Notification No. 155/86-Cus. granted a reduced rate for parts required for manufacture of goods falling under headings 8432 to 8443, but its Explanation restricted the reference rate to the rate applicable to the complete article as specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with only the notifications expressly named in that Explanation. Notification No. 59/87-Cus. was one of the notifications specifically incorporated, whereas Notification No. 114/80-Cus. was not. As the complete machinery was classifiable under heading 8443.11 and Notification No. 59/87-Cus. prescribed the relevant concessional rate for that heading, the rate for parts had to be worked out only from that incorporated rate and then reduced by 10% ad valorem.

Conclusion: The rate applicable to the imported parts was 25% ad valorem, and the assessee's claim to apply Notification No. 114/80-Cus. was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the specific incorporation scheme in Notification No. 155/86-Cus. controlled the applicable duty rate, leaving no basis to import the benefit of Notification No. 114/80-Cus. into the computation.

---