Category: #Acts

  • β€œIntellectual Property Laws are protected under Indian Customs Border Control Laws”

    β€œIntellectual Property Laws are protected under Indian Customs Border Control Laws”

    Logo of Aadrikaa Law Offices featuring a gold emblem with scales, accompanied by the text 'Aadrikaa Law Offices (ALO) Your Own Law Office' on a dark red background.

    Date: 04.02.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    ​​ ​​  β€‹  β€‹ ​​ ​

    This short Article provides an overview of the Indian Customs’ measures for protecting Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) at the border. ​ It outlines the procedures, laws, and rules for IPR registration, enforcement, interdiction, determination, and disposal of infringing goods. ​

    Types of IPRs Protected by Customs ​

    • Trademarks Act, 1999 ​
    • Patents Act, 1970 ​
    • Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 ​
    • Copyright Act, 1957 ​
    • Designs Act, 2000 ​
    • Legal Basis: Section 11 of the Customs Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit import/export of goods violating IPRs. ​
    • Notification: Notification No. ​ 51/2010-Cus. (NT) prohibits the import of goods infringing IPRs. ​
    • Conditions: Prohibition is subject to the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 enforced through M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 47/2007-Cus. (N.T.) dated 8th May, 2007 as amended.

    (a) “goods infringing intellectual property rights” means any goods which are made, reproduced, put into circulation or otherwise used in breach of the intellectual property laws in India or outside India and without the consent of the right holder or a person duly authorized to do so by the right holder;

    (b) “intellectual property” means a copyright as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957, trade mark as defined in the Trade Marks Act,1999, [* * * *] design as defined in the Designs Act, 2000 and geographical indications as defined in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;

    (c) “Intellectual property law” means the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trade Marks Act,1999, [* * * *] the Designs Act, 2000 or the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;

    (d) “right holder” means a natural person or a legal entity, which according to the laws in force is to be regarded as the owner of protected intellectual property right, its successors in title, or its duly authorized exclusive licensee as well as an individual, a corporation or an association authorized by any of the aforesaid persons to protect its rights.

    • Online Application: Submit applications at https://ipr.icegate.gov.in/IPR/homePage
    • Required Documents:
      • Registration certificate or proof of ownership. ​
      • Demand draft details/Online Payment through ICEGATE Portal/Payment Proof of INR 2000.00 only
      • Power of Attorney in the name of the Right Holder or the Authorized representative. ​
      • Statement of exclusivity. ​
      • Digital images of genuine and infringing goods. ​
      • IEC code. ​
      • Description of geographical indications (if applicable). ​

    Indemnity Bond

    • Protects Customs authorities from liability for detaining goods suspected of infringement. ​

    General Bond vs. Centralized Bond

    • General Bond: Requires consignment-specific bonds for each interdiction. ​
    • Centralized Bond: A running bond applicable across India, with a single Bond Registration Number (BRN) for all rights registered by the rights holder. ​

    Detention of Suspected Infringing Goods ​

    • Notification: Customs informs the importer and rights holder of the detention. ​
    • Maximum Detention Period for deciding the matter: 10 working days for regular goods; 3 working days for perishable goods. (Rule 7)
    • (1) Where upon determination by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, it is found that the goods detained or seized have infringed intellectual property rights, and have been confiscated under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and no legal proceedings are pending in relation to such determination, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall, destroy the goods under official supervision or dispose them outside the normal channels of commerce after obtaining ‘no objection’ or concurrence of the right holder or his authorized representative :
    • Provided that if the right holder or his authorized representative does not oppose or react to the mode of disposal as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, within twenty working days after having been informed, or within such extended period as may have been granted by the Commissioner at the request of the right holder, not exceeding another twenty working days, he shall be deemed to have concurred with the mode of disposal as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be :
    • Provided further that the costs toward destruction, demurrage and detention charges incurred till the time of destruction or disposal, as the case may be, shall be borne by the right holder.
    • (2) There shall not be allowed the re-exportation of the goods infringing intellectual property rights in an unaltered state.
    • (3) The Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, may on his own, or at the request of the right holder, retain samples of goods infringing intellectual property rights prior to their destruction or disposal and provide the same to the right holder or importer if such samples are needed as evidence in pending or future litigation.
    • Goods of a non-commercial nature contained in personal baggage or sent in small consignments intended for personal use of the importer are not subject to the above Rules.
    • Customs can suspend clearance of goods on its own initiative if there is prima facie evidence of infringement. Or at the written request of the Rights holder, as the case maybe.
    • Rights holder must comply with recordable requirements within 5 days. ​
    • Show Cause Notice: Issued to the importer and shared with the rights holder. ​
    • Adjudication: Includes importer’s reply and personal hearing. ​
    • Confiscation: If goods are found infringing, they are confiscated. ​
    • Process: Confiscated goods are destroyed or disposed of outside normal commerce channels. ​
    • Rights Holder’s Consent: Required for destruction/disposal. ​
    • Samples: Provided to the rights holder upon request. ​

    Informing Customs of Infringing Consignments ​

    • Rights holders can notify Customs via email, fax, or post at the relevant Customs Station or Risk Management Division. ​

    This Short Article serves as a comprehensive guide for rights holders, Customs officers, importers, and other stakeholders involved in IPR enforcement at Indian borders. ​

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Handy Download:

  • β€œCAAR New Delhi Clarifies Classification of Smartphone Window Glass as β€˜Parts’ under CTH 8529”

    β€œCAAR New Delhi Clarifies Classification of Smartphone Window Glass as β€˜Parts’ under CTH 8529”

    Logo of Aadrikaa Law Offices featuring a gold design with scales of justice on a maroon background, including the text 'Your Own Law Office' and the website URL.

    Date: 30.01.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    ​​ ​​  β€‹  β€‹ ​​ ​

    The ruling concerns an application filed by M/s. Samsung Display Noida Private Limited before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), New Delhi, seeking clarity on the tariff classification of imported β€œWindow Glass” used in the manufacture of display assemblies for mobile phones and tablets.

    The applicant argued that the product is not merely safety glass but an integral and indispensable component of the display assembly, providing protection, structural stability, optical clarity, and user interaction interface.

    Two competing tariff headings were examined:

    • CTH 7007 – Safety glass (toughened or laminated)
    • CTH 8529 – Parts suitable for use solely or principally with apparatus of headings 8525–8528

    After analysing the product’s function, industry usage, and HSN explanatory notes, the Authority concluded that the Window Glass functions as a part of the display assembly rather than standalone safety glass and therefore merits classification under CTH 8529 90 90 (β€œOther”).

    Legal / Statutory Provisions Referred

    1. Section 28E(c), Customs Act, 1962 β€” Defines β€œapplicant” eligible to seek an advance ruling.
    2. Section 28H β€” Governs the procedure for filing advance ruling applications.
    3. Section 28-I(2) β€” Bars admission where the issue is pending before any customs authority or court.
    4. Section 12, Customs Act, 1962 β€” Charging provision for levy of customs duty.
    5. General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) β€” Classification must follow headings, section notes, and chapter notes; Rule 3(c) applies when goods are equally classifiable.
    6. Section XVI Note 2(b) β€” Parts suitable for use solely or principally with a specific machine are classified with that machine.
    7. HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 7007 and 8529 β€” Provide interpretative guidance on β€œsafety glass” versus β€œparts of apparatus.”

    Judicial Citations Referred:

    1. Saurashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs, 1997 (95) ELT 455 (SC)

    Held that section and chapter notes override headings, establishing hierarchy in tariff interpretation.

    2. O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi III, 2005 (180) ELT 300 (SC)

    Recognised the HSN as a dependable guide for resolving classification disputes.

    3. I.M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2010 (258) ELT 321 (SC)

    Confirmed that HSN explanatory notes carry persuasive value in tariff interpretation.

    4. CC v. Gajra Beveling Electronics Ltd., 2005 (188) ELT 352 (SC)

    Reaffirmed reliance on HSN where domestic tariff mirrors international nomenclature.

    5. CCE v. Phil Corporation Ltd., 2008 (223) ELT 9 (SC)

    Held that classification must consider functional characteristics of goods.

    6. CAAR Mumbai Ruling β€” M/s Online Instruments India Pvt. Ltd. (01.05.2025)

    Display cover glass designed solely for Interactive Flat Panel Displays classified under CTH 8529, not 7007.

    Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Ruling

    • Functional test prevails over material composition in classification.
    • Goods forming an inseparable part of a larger apparatus should be classified as parts.
    • HSN explanatory notes remain a critical interpretative tool.
    • When dual classification is possible, GIR and section notes guide the final outcome.
    • Industry and commercial understanding can influence classification.

    Order Issued

    The CAAR held that the imported Window Glass is an integral component of the display assembly used in mobile phones and is therefore classifiable under CTH 8529 90 90 rather than CTH 7007.

    This ruling is strategically important for the electronics manufacturing ecosystem, particularly for companies operating under India’s PLI-driven mobile manufacturing supply chains.

    Why the ruling matters:

    • It reinforces the β€œsole or principal use” doctrine for parts classification.
    • Prevents revenue authorities from adopting a narrow, material-based approach.
    • Provides certainty for importers of high-value electronic components.
    • Aligns Indian classification with global HSN interpretation β€” reducing litigation risk.

    Possible Future Impact:

    The decision may influence classification disputes involving touch panels, cover glass, OLED layers, and display modules, where authorities often attempt classification under generic glass headings.

    Caution:

    Since advance rulings are binding only on the applicant and jurisdictional officers, broader applicability will depend on departmental acceptance or appellate affirmation.

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

  • CAAR Mumbai Rules Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900 eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    CAAR Mumbai Rules Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900 eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    Dated: 30.01.2026

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    Applicant: Suzlon Energy Limited ​

    Subject Goods: Carbon Pultruded Plates ​

    Issue: Determination of the applicable Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate for the import of Carbon Pultruded Plates under Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs (as amended by Notification No. ​ 05/2025-Customs). ​

    Suzlon Energy Limited sought an advance ruling on whether Carbon Pultruded Plates, used as spar caps in rotor blades of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG), qualify for concessional BCD under Sr. No. 405(4) or Sr. No. ​ 405(5) of the exemption notification. ​

    The applicant argued that the plates, made from carbon fibers, are integral to the manufacturing of rotor blades and should qualify for concessional BCD either as “raw materials” under Sr. No. ​ 405(5) or as “parts” under Sr. No. 405(4). ​

    The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) examined the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 68151900 and the scope of the exemption notification. ​

    1. Customs Act, 1962 ​
      • Section 28H(1): Application for advance ruling.
      • Section 28-I(2): Matters related to classification of goods and applicability of exemption notifications. ​
    2. Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ​
      • Chapter Heading 68151900: Classification of Carbon Pultruded Plates as “Other articles of carbon fibers.” ​
    3. Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs (as amended by Notification No. ​ 05/2025-Customs) ​
      • Sr. No. ​ 405(5): Concessional BCD for “Balsa Wood, Carbon Fibre for the wind operated electricity generator blades.” ​
      • Sr. No. ​ 405(4): Concessional BCD for “Parts for the manufacture or the maintenance of blades for rotor of wind operated electricity generators.” ​
    1. Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engineering Works [1993 (67) ELT 134 (Tribunal)] ​
      • Established the principle that “a part of a part is a part of the whole,” meaning sub-components of a machine are categorized as components of the machine. ​
    2. Collector of Central Excise v. MP Oil Ltd [1990 (46) ELT 68 (Tribunal)] ​
      • Reaffirmed the principle that sub-components are integral parts of the whole machine. ​
    3. CCE v. Insulation Electrical [2008 (224) ELT 512 (SC)] ​
      • Defined “parts” as essential components of the whole without which the whole cannot function. ​
    4. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE [1989 (43) ELT 178 (SC)] ​
      • Distinguished machine-specific components as “parts” rather than generic raw materials. ​
    1. Classification: Carbon Pultruded Plates are classified under CTH 68151900 as “Other articles of carbon fibers” with a standard BCD rate of 10%. ​
    2. Eligibility under Sr. No. ​ 405(5): The plates are not eligible for concessional BCD under Sr. No. ​ 405(5) as this entry covers only raw carbon fibers or balsa wood, not articles of carbon fibers. ​
    3. Eligibility under Sr. No. ​ 405(4): The plates qualify as “parts for the manufacture or maintenance of blades for rotor of wind operated electricity generators” and are eligible for concessional BCD at 5%. ​

    The primary legal framework for the classification of goods is derived from the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI).

    • Classification is the process of identifying the correct tariff heading or sub-heading for goods, which determines duty liability and eligibility for exemptions.
    • The GRI provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes.
    1. Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Provides tariff structure and GRI.
    2. Customs Act, 1962 – Governs levy, valuation, and import compliance once classification is determined.
    3. GST framework (where relevant) – Uses HSN for tax rate determination.

    India follows the internationally harmonized system designed by the World Customs Organization, used by over 200 countries for uniform classification.

    (A) Primacy of Headings and Notes

    The Supreme Court-recognized rule is that classification must be based on:

    • Terms of the heading
    • Relevant Section Notes
    • Chapter Notes

    These notes are binding and can override headings when necessary.

    (B) Sequential Application of GRI

    • Titles of sections or chapters are only for reference.
    • Legal determination flows from headings and notes first.

    (C) Essential Character Rule

    Incomplete or unassembled goods are classified as finished goods if they possess the β€œessential character.”

    (D) Competing Headings β†’ Rule 3

    Where goods are prima facie classifiable under multiple headings, GRI Rule 3 determines the correct classification.

    (E) β€œMost Akin” Test

    The Supreme Court has clarified that classification should identify the category most akin to the imported goods, not merely rely on probability.

    In Collector of Central Excise v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 23 (SC), the Court emphasized that tariff interpretation rules govern classification and that Section/Chapter Notes carry statutory force.

    Further, the Supreme Court reiterated that classification is crucial because it determines the legal and financial treatment of goods, including duty implications.

    4. Special Context: HSN 68151900

    • HSN 6815 covers β€œarticles of stone or other mineral substances (including carbon fibres)… not elsewhere specified.”
    • Sub-heading 68151900 specifically refers to other non-electrical articles of graphite or carbon.


    Because Heading 6815 is a residuary-style entry (β€œnot elsewhere specified or included”), courts and authorities typically apply the following logic:

    1. Examine whether the product fits a more specific heading first (GRI Rule 1 & 3).
    2. If not, classification may fall under the residual category.
    3. Apply the most akin test where technical similarity is disputed.

    5. Applied Legal Test for Goods under 68151900

    When deciding whether goods belong under 68151900, authorities generally evaluate:

    • Material composition (graphite/carbon vs. other minerals)
    • Functional use (non-electrical vs. electrical components)
    • Manufacturing characteristics
    • Trade understanding / commercial identity

    Only after excluding competing headings should the residuary entry be invoked β€” a well-settled interpretative approach under tariff law.

    6. Consolidated Legal Position

    Classification under Indian customs law is determined primarily by the statutory language of headings read with Section and Chapter Notes, applied through the General Rules for Interpretation; where ambiguity persists, courts adopt the essential character and β€œmost akin” tests before resorting to residuary entries such as HSN 68151900.

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379