The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi has held that disc-brake units and pole wheels imported for Indian Railways coaches do not qualify as Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) equipment and the assessee was therefore ineligible for the concessional 7.5% basic customs duty rate under Entry 521 of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. 

The bench of Rachna Gupta (Officiating President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical  Member) restricted the differential-duty demand to imports falling within the normal limitation period.

Buy Now: 50+ Judgements on Customs Valuation

The appellant/assessee supplied axle-mounted disc-brake systems for Alstom-LHB design coaches used by Indian Railways. It imported disc-brake units and related parts, classified them under tariff item 86079990, and claimed the customs concession on the ground that the components formed part of a system protecting trains and warning against danger. Customs audit officers disputed the claim. After issuing two pre-notice consultative letters, the department issued a show-cause notice on September 18, 2020, proposing recovery of differential duty.

Before the Tribunal, assesse argued that neither the customs notification nor the law defined TPWS. It said its braking system monitored wheel behaviour, prevented skidding and helped avert derailment in high-speed coaches. On that basis, the company urged a broad reading of “protection” and “warning” that would include equipment performing those safety functions. It also relied on opinions from a retired Railway Ministry official and a chartered engineer supporting its interpretation.

The customs department maintained that TPWS has a specific meaning in railway engineering. It described TPWS as a signalling-based system using trackside and onboard equipment to monitor signals and speed and, when necessary, command an existing braking system to apply the brakes. In its view, a brake component remains part of that existing system even if it improves train safety. The department also pointed to railway technical material and specifications that did not list axle-mounted disc-brake units among TPWS components.

The Tribunal accepted the department’s distinction. It examined Indian Railways’ TPWS specification, RDSO/SPN/183/2016, which lists components such as balises, onboard computers, a driver-machine interface, a speed-and-distance measurement unit and an interface to the existing brake-control system. The bench observed that the imported disc-brake units were not listed as TPWS equipment. It acknowledged that a pole wheel may form part of a speed-and-distance measurement arrangement, but found no basis in the record to treat the imported goods as components of TPWS.

According to the bench, TPWS can direct service or emergency brake application, while the disc-brake system is part of the train’s existing mechanical or pneumatic braking arrangement. The two serve distinct safety purposes: the axle-mounted disc-brake system helps prevent wheel lock and derailment, whereas TPWS addresses risks such as passing a signal at danger, approaching speed restrictions too fast and collisions at buffer stops.

The Tribunal rejected Escorts’ attempt to use dictionary meanings of “protection” and “warning” to widen the notification. Although TPWS was not defined in the customs notification, the bench said it had a recognised technical meaning in the railway context. It gave greater weight to official railway specifications and technical material than to the expert opinions submitted by the importer. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dilip Kumar and Company, it also noted that a claimant must establish that its goods fall within the terms of a customs concession.

Escorts succeeded on a separate limitation point. The show-cause notice sought duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, which governs the normal limitation period. The company argued that three bills of entry dated July 13, August 6 and September 7, 2018 fell outside that period. The Tribunal held that a demand beyond the normal period could not be sustained when the notice had proceeded under Section 28(1); doing so would go beyond the notice’s scope.

CESTAT accordingly denied the TPWS customs concession but confined the differential-duty demand on the disc-brake units and pole wheels to bills of entry within the normal limitation period. It allowed Escorts’ appeal to that extent and modified the Commissioner’s order. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Gold Doré Imports Without Mining Company Documents Can’t Claim Customs Exemption: CESTAT