In re Pinaka Aerospace Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (CAAR Mumbai)
Summary: The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai considered whether three key components proposed to be imported by Pinaka Aerospace Solutions Pvt. Ltd.—MILDS F SUOF Lens V2, Front End (M2FE) V2.11 and MILDS F SUII Coupled V2.5 series—were eligible for exemption from customs duty under Sl. No. 60 of Table II to Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025. The components were to be imported from HENSOLDT, Germany and assembled in India into the MILDS AN/AAR-60 Block 2 Missile Warning System for installation on MI-17 V5 and MLH helicopters operated by the Indian Air Force. The Authority noted that Sl. No. 60 applies to goods falling under “Any Chapter” and covers parts, sub-assemblies, spares, accessories, tools and other specified goods for defence equipment including aircraft. Consequently, eligibility was principally dependent upon the functional character and intended end-use of the imported goods rather than their individual tariff classifications.
The Authority found that the three imported components were prefabricated units manufactured separately but engineered to be combined into the MILDS Block 2 Missile Warning System, which in turn forms part of the aircraft’s electronic-warfare suite. They therefore answered the description of “sub-assemblies … for goods like … aircrafts”. It further held that, even if their characterisation as sub-assemblies were doubted, they qualified as accessories because the missile-warning system materially enhanced the effectiveness of the military aircraft by detecting incoming missile threats and facilitating countermeasures. The Authority relied on the principle relating to accessories discussed in Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1976) 2 SCC 273. Since aircraft were expressly specified in the exemption entry and helicopters fell within the description of aircraft, the Authority found it unnecessary to invoke the residuary expression “etc.” or the ejusdem generis principle discussed in Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.
