In re Sunwoda Electronic India Private Limited (CAAR Delhi)
Summary : The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Delhi, ruled on the classification and concessional Basic Customs Duty (BCD) applicable to “Die Cut Tape” and “Tape in Roll” imported by Sunwoda Electronic India Private Limited for manufacturing lithium-ion battery packs for cellular mobile phones. The ruling covers connected applications involving ACC Import, New Delhi, Nhava Sheva and ICD Dadri. The Authority accepted classification of the die-cut product under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8507 90 90 and continuous tape rolls of width not exceeding 20 cm under CTI 3919 10 00. Both products qualify for 2.5% BCD under Serial No. 295 of Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025, subject to the stipulated conditions.
The die-cut tape consists of polyimide film combined with acrylic adhesive and a white PET release film. It withstands temperatures above 130°C and provides electrical insulation and protection against short circuits in battery packs. Its imported form is significant: the goods are already precisely cut, shaped and dimensioned for specific battery applications, and are supplied ready for use. Their contours and dedicated design make them unsuitable for general-purpose use. Applying General Interpretative Rule 1 and the relevant Section and Chapter Notes, the Authority treated these goods as identifiable parts of electric accumulators. Note 2(b) to Section XVI supports classification of parts suitable solely or principally for a particular kind of machine with that machine. The exclusion for plastic parts of general use in Section Note 1(g) did not apply to this dedicated battery part. Chapter Note 2(s) excludes articles of Section XVI from Chapter 39. The HSN explanatory guidance on identifiable, ready-to-use accumulator parts also supported CTI 8507 90 90.
Tape in Roll has a different identity when imported. It is a high-temperature, pressure-sensitive, self-adhesive plastic tape made of polyimide or polyester film with acrylic adhesive and can withstand temperatures above 105°C. The imported continuous rolls lack battery-specific geometry and can serve a range of electronic or electrical applications. The applicant cuts and adapts them only after importation. That later use cannot retrospectively change their classification as imported. Heading 3919 specifically covers self-adhesive flat shapes of plastics, including tape in rolls. Accordingly, rolls not exceeding 20 cm in width fall under CTI 3919 10 00, subject to verification of their dimensions at import. The Authority relied on the principles governing customs tariff classification and considered the ATL Battery Technology advance ruling cited by the applicant.
For the concession, Serial No. 295 covers qualifying goods under Chapter 85 or any other Chapter. Clause (i) provides for parts, components and accessories, excluding lithium-ion cells and Printed Circuit Board Assembly (PCBA), used to manufacture lithium-ion batteries and battery packs. The finished die-cut insulating tape falls within this clause. Clause (ii) extends to sub-parts used to manufacture the parts, components and accessories referred to in clause (i). Tape in Roll, subsequently cut into the insulating parts used in battery manufacture, falls within clause (ii). Its classification in Chapter 39 does not by itself exclude the concession. The benefit remains subject to qualifying end use, Condition No. 3 and compliance with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules, 2022.
The Authority also addressed maintainability. The applicant disclosed a DRI adjudication order dated 12.12.2019 concerning imports from 27.07.2018 to 31.12.2018 and the IGST treatment of battery inputs. Those proceedings concerned the past grouping and tax treatment of imported components; the present questions concerned individual product classification and eligibility under the later customs concession. The earlier proceedings therefore did not prevent determination of the present applications. The Authority further held that an ongoing import activity can be the subject of an advance ruling with prospective effect. It considered the applications valid under the Customs Act and CAAR Regulations, 2021, the jurisdictional Commissioners’ comments and the personal hearing held on 14.09.2026.
The final ruling classifies Die Cut Tape under CTI 8507 90 90 and Tape in Roll of width not exceeding 20 cm under CTI 3919 10 00, with dimensional verification for the rolls. It allows the concessional BCD for both products subject to Condition No. 3 and the IGCR Rules, 2022. The decision turns on the products’ objective form and degree of preparation at importation, while concession eligibility depends on their specified manufacturing use and compliance with the notification.
Cases Discussed
- M/s. ATL Battery Technology (India) Private Limited — 2025 (12) TMI 1325 (CAAR, New Delhi) — Tape rolls of width not exceeding 20 cm were classified under CTI 3919 10 00.
- Revenue appeal concerning Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. — Civil Appeal Diary No. 25225/2024, order dated 19.07.2024 (Supreme Court) — The source records dismissal of the Revenue appeal against the CESTAT classification decision.
- Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi — Final Order No. 51665/2023 dated 20.12.2023; 2023 (12) TMI 1155 (CESTAT, New Delhi) — Dedicated front, middle and back mobile-phone covers were treated as phone parts rather than generic plastic articles.
- Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. — (2023) 5 Centax 186 (A.A.R. – Cus. – Mum.) — Cited for the prospective availability of advance rulings for ongoing activities. The underlying ruling predates the 2023 reporter citation.
- Sirthai Superware India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III — 2020 (371) E.L.T. 324 (Tri. – Mumbai); decision dated 10.10.2019 — Cited for preference of a specific tariff entry over a residuary entry.
- L.M.L. Limited v. Commissioner of Customs — 2010 (258) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — HSN explanatory notes provide a dependable guide to tariff interpretation.
- Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. — 2008 (225) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — A specific tariff entry should prevail over a residuary entry.
- Commissioner of Central Excise v. Phil. Corporation Ltd. — 2008 (223) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) — Cited as supporting reliance on HSN explanatory guidance.
- Commissioner of Customs v. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd. — (2005) 7 SCC 118; 2005 (186) E.L.T. 532 (S.C.) — Cited in support of HSN explanatory notes as an interpretative guide.
- O.K. Play (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III — 2005 (180) E.L.T. 300 (S.C.) — Functional utility, design, shape and predominant use are relevant to classification; HSN guidance assists interpretation.
- Saurashtra Chemicals v. Collector of Customs — 1997 (95) E.L.T. 455 (S.C.) — Approved the Larger Bench approach to the statutory force of Section and Chapter Notes.
- Saurashtra Chemical, Porbandar v. Collector of Customs — 1986 (23) E.L.T. 283 (Tri. – Delhi, Larger Bench) — Tariff headings must be read with Section and Chapter Notes, which can determine or exclude classification.
- Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and Others — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.); decision dated 06.10.1975 — Cited for specific-entry preference and classification by the goods’ condition at importation.
