In re Radiant Enterprises (CAAR Mumbai)
Summary: Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai ruled that embedded Wi-Fi, cellular communication and navigation/positioning (GNSS) modules proposed to be imported by Radiant Enterprises merit classification under Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90 as parts of apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data. The application covered the 2DS Wi-Fi module; cellular modules Neoway N58, Quectel SC600Y Series, AirPrime WP76XX Series, Neoway M590, Neoway N706-CB and TT02-00; and GNSS modules TAU1114, TAU1204 and TT03-00. CAAR examined Heading 8517, the General Rules for Interpretation, HSN Explanatory Notes and Note 2 to Section XVI. It found that, in their imported condition, the modules do not independently perform the communication or positioning function for which the completed host apparatus is intended.
They become operational only after integration with a PCB and other essential components such as an antenna, power source and, for cellular modules, SIM/eSIM. Applying the test whether an item has a separate identifiable function and whether it can operate independently, CAAR held that the modules are parts rather than complete apparatus.
The Authority also relied on earlier rulings and judicial precedents concerning classification of modules and parts. Having classified the goods under CTI 8517 79 90, CAAR further held that they are covered by Sl. No. 5 of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus., dated 30.06.2017, as amended, and are eligible for Nil Basic Customs Duty because they are not parts of cellular mobile phones or wrist-wearable devices, nor inputs or sub-parts for manufacture of those excluded goods. The exemption remains subject to prescribed conditions and verification by jurisdictional Customs authorities at importation.
Cases Discussed
- In re ONYX Components & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/40/2025-26 dated 26.06.2025 (CAAR Mumbai) — Relied upon as a materially identical ruling classifying GSM/GPRS, LTE, NR, NB-IoT and GPS modules as parts under CTI 8517 79 90.
- M/s Fiberhome India Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Final Order No. 51378/2025 dated 29.09.2025 (CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi) — The applicant relied on the twin test for distinguishing parts from apparatus; CAAR applied the same approach to the subject modules.
- M/s Hewlett-Packard Enterprise India Pvt. Ltd., 2025 (12) TMI 1405 (CAAR New Delhi) — Relied upon for availability of Nil BCD under Sl. No. 5 of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. to eligible goods classifiable under CTI 8517 79 90.
- Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Final Order No. 50874/2022 dated 20.09.2022 (CESTAT, New Delhi) — CAAR referred to the twin test of separate identifiable function and independent operation for determining whether goods are parts.
- Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. M.I. System (India) P. Ltd., 2010 (256) E.L.T. 173 (S.C.) — Referred to for the proposition that, in a parts-versus-equipment dispute, the main equipment must be viewed holistically and an item lacking independent identity and function may be treated as a part.
- CCE, Delhi v. Insulation Electrical (P) Ltd., 2008 (224) E.L.T. 512 (S.C.) — Relied upon for the definition of a part as an essential component of the whole without which the whole cannot function.
- Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. Modicom Network Pvt. Ltd., 2005 (185) E.L.T. 333 (Tri.-Bang.) — Relied upon for treating modules having no independent function and inserted as essential components of a main machine as parts rather than apparatus.
- Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. CCE, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 305 (Tribunal), maintained at 1996 (83) E.L.T. A48 (S.C.) — Cited alongside Insulation Electrical on the meaning of a part.
- Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., CUSAA 179/2022, decided on 13.01.2023 (Delhi High Court) — Referred to in considering the scope of the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 28-I(2) where similar questions had arisen in another entity’s case.
