When a Shelf Is Just a Shelf

Aluminium shelving imported for growing mushrooms is an aluminium structure of heading 76.10 (HS subheading 7610.90; Indian tariff item 7610 90 10), not a part of agricultural machinery of heading 84.36. That is what the Supreme Court of India held in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Welkin Foods, reversing CESTAT. The case was decided at GRI 1: the shelving was neither “machinery” nor a “part” of machinery, so the exclusion in Section XV Note 1(f) never applied, no tie between headings arose, and GRI 3 was never in play.

Citation: 2026 INSC 19 · Civil Appeal No. 5531 of 2025 · Supreme Court of India · decided 6 January 2026 · Bench: J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

The question in one line: are aluminium shelves imported for mushroom growing “aluminium structures” of Chapter 76, or “parts of agricultural machinery” of Chapter 84?

Scope note: this study analyses the classification reasoning at the six-digit level of the WCO Harmonized System, using the General Rules for the Interpretation (GRI 1 to 6, HS 2022 edition) and the WCO Explanatory Notes. It is educational commentary and not a binding ruling. National tariff items beyond six digits (the Indian eight-digit CTI) are referred to only as they appear in the judgment.

---

At a glance

Figure 1: Case at a glance.

The Supreme Court restored the Revenue’s classification and held the shelving to be aluminium structures under CTI 7610 90 10 (HS subheading 7610.90), setting aside the CESTAT order. The importer lost the nil-duty benefit it had claimed under CTI 8436 99 00, and the short-levied duty of ₹21,01,983 (plus interest) became recoverable under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The facts

M/s Welkin Foods imported aluminium shelving (6,451.20 sqm), together with a floor drain and an automatic watering system, under Bill of Entry No. 7399702 dated 09.11.2016 at ICD Tughlakabad. All three items were declared under CTI 8436 99 00, as parts of agricultural or horticultural machinery, which carries a nil rate of duty.

The Revenue accepted the floor drain and the watering system under 8436 99 00. On audit, however, it took the view that the shelving was an aluminium structure properly classifiable under CTI 7610 90 10, attracting basic customs duty of 10% along with countervailing duty (12.5%), customs cess (3%) and additional customs duty (4%). A show cause notice followed, alleging a short levy of ₹21,01,983 recoverable under Section 28(1) with interest under Section 28AA.

The shelves were custom-built so that the other mushroom-cultivation equipment (head-filling machines, the watering system, compost-spreading and spraying equipment) could be clamped onto them after importation. At the time of import, though, the shelving was simply aluminium shelving.

Issue to be determined

Are the goods classifiable as parts of machines or mechanical appliances of Chapter 84 under CTI 8436 99 00, or as aluminium structures of Chapter 76 under CTI 7610 90 10?

The litigation history

Figure 2: Four forums, one question.

Forum	Date	Outcome	Basis
Order-in-Original (Joint Commissioner, ICD Tughlakabad)	28.02.2019	Goods are structures: 7610 90 10	GRI 1 (terms of heading and Notes)
Order-in-Appeal (Commissioner (Appeals))	28.12.2020	Affirms the Order-in-Original	GRI 1
CESTAT (Principal Bench, New Delhi)	19.04.2024	Reverses: 8436 99 00 (nil)	GRI 3 plus trade parlance and end use
Supreme Court	06.01.2026	Allows the Revenue’s appeal: 7610 90 10	GRI 1 plus Section and Chapter Notes

The two departmental authorities and the Supreme Court agreed that the goods were structures. CESTAT alone went the other way, and its order could not survive because it applied the GRIs out of sequence.

The interpretative framework

1. GRI 1 governs; the later rules are “locked doorways”

Figure 3: The “locked doorways” of classification.

GRI 1 provides that classification is determined “according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes.” The Explanatory Notes to GRI 1 add two points the Court relied on heavily:

• Section, Chapter and sub-Chapter titles are “for ease of reference only” and have no legal bearing (EN to GRI 1, paragraph II).
• The headings and relative Notes are paramount, the first consideration, and a great many goods are classified on GRI 1 alone without recourse to the later rules (EN to GRI 1, paragraphs IV and V).

The Court used the image of “locked doorways”: classification begins, and usually ends, at GRI 1. GRI 2 to 5 are reached only when GRI 1 (with the Notes) cannot resolve the matter. GRI 3 in particular can be reached only once GRI 1 produces a genuine tie between two or more headings. GRI 6, which applies the same rules mutatis mutandis at subheading level and compares only subheadings at the same dash level, comes last. Our practical guide to the six GRIs sets out the full sequence.

This sequencing is the core of the judgment. CESTAT’s error was to go straight to GRI 3(a) and ask which heading was “more specific”, without first establishing under GRI 1 that the goods were even prima facie classifiable under both competing headings.

2. Two supporting doctrines, applied with restraint

The judgment also restates two familiar tools, and is careful to keep both subordinate to GRI 1:

• The common or trade parlance test may be invoked only in the absence of statutory guidance, where the heading uses no scientific or technical term and the result would not contradict the statutory scheme. It cannot move goods that are clearly identifiable under a heading merely because the trade calls them by a different name.
• Use may be considered, as against an eo nomine description, only where the heading refers to use or adaptation, explicitly or inherently. Even then, what counts is the intended use discernible from the goods’ objective characteristics at the time of import (the as-imported principle), and not the actual or subjective end use.

Both doctrines pointed the same way here, but neither was needed to decide the case. The Notes did that.

The competing headings and their Notes

Figure 4: Two headings, two tests.

1. Heading 76.10: aluminium structures

Heading 76.10 reads: “Aluminium structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of heading 94.06) and parts of structures … ; aluminium plates, rods, profiles, tubes and the like, prepared for use in structures.” Its one-dash subheadings are 7610.10 (doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors) and 7610.90 (other).

The heading sets a two-part test: the goods must (1) be of aluminium and (2) be a structure or part of one. The first limb was not disputed. For the second, the Nomenclature gives no definition, but the EN to heading 76.10 says that the EN to heading 73.08 applies mutatis mutandis. The EN to 73.08 gives the working criteria for a “structure”:

• once put in position, the article generally remains in that position; and
• it is usually built up from bars, rods, tubes, sections, sheets, plates, etc., by riveting, bolting, welding and the like.

The same EN lists, among the goods of the heading, “large-scale shelving for assembly and permanent installation in shops, workshops, storehouses … stalls and racks.” Shelving and racks are standard examples of structures. On its objective characteristics, the shelving fits heading 76.10.

2. Heading 84.36: agricultural machinery and parts

Heading 84.36 reads: “Other agricultural, horticultural, forestry, poultry-keeping or bee-keeping machinery … ; poultry incubators and brooders.” Under the one-dash subheading for parts sit 8436.91 (of poultry-keeping machinery or of poultry incubators and brooders) and 8436.99 (other). The importer claimed CTI 8436 99 00.

For parts, heading 84.36 sets a two-fold test: there must first be (1) agricultural machinery, and (2) the goods must be parts of that machinery. The governing Notes are:

• Section XVI, Note 2, the rules for parts. Parts that are themselves goods of a Chapter 84 or 85 heading go to their own heading; other parts suitable for use solely or principally with a particular machine go with that machine. (The case study on “solely” versus “principally” use looks at that phrase in detail.)
• Section XVI, Note 3: composite machines and multi-function machines are classified by their principal function.
• Section XVI, Note 4: functional units. Separate components intended to contribute together to a single clearly defined function are classified by that function.
• Section XVI, Note 5: for the purposes of these Notes, “machine” means any machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or appliance cited in the headings of Chapter 84 or 85.
• Chapter 84, Note 7: a machine used for more than one purpose is treated as if its principal purpose were its sole purpose.
• The EN to Chapter 84 explains that headings 84.25 to 84.78 (which include 84.36) group machines by the field of industry in which they are used.

So heading 84.36 is an eo nomine heading for “machinery” that carries a principal-use test within it (“agricultural”). The eo nomine core, machinery, has to be satisfied first.

3. The exclusion link that decides the contest

Two provisions ensure that the two headings cannot both apply:

• Section XV, Note 1(f): Section XV (which contains Chapter 76) does not cover articles of Section XVI (machinery, mechanical appliances and electrical goods).
• EN to heading 76.10, exclusion (a): the heading excludes “assemblies identifiable as parts of articles of Chapters 84 to 88.”

If the shelving really is a part of agricultural machinery under Chapter 84, it is barred from 76.10. If it is not, the bar never operates and the shelving stays in 76.10. The whole case therefore comes down to a single GRI 1 inquiry into heading 84.36. There is no tie and no GRI 3.

The Court’s reasoning: why heading 76.10 wins

Figure 5: It was the Notes, not the tie-breakers.

Step 1: the shelving prima facie answers heading 76.10. Applying the EN to 76.10 (through the EN to 73.08), the goods are aluminium, remain in position once installed and are built up by bolting or welding. That is the profile of a structure, and indeed of the “shelving … racks” the EN names.

Step 2: the gatekeeper Notes. Because of Section XV Note 1(f) and exclusion (a) of the EN to 76.10, the goods can leave 76.10 only by qualifying under Chapter 84. So the Court tested heading 84.36.

Gate 1: is there “machinery”? No.

• The respondent relied on Section XVI Note 5 to argue that “machine” includes “plant”, so a mushroom-growing plant qualifies. The Court read Note 5 strictly. Its wide definition operates “for the purposes of these Notes” only and does not widen heading 84.36, whose text says simply “machinery”. A heading that names only “machinery” cannot be stretched to “plant”; where the drafters wanted “plant”, they said so (for example in headings 84.04 and 84.19). The express mention of “germination plant” in 84.36 confirms that other plants are not otherwise covered.
• The “mushroom growing apparatus” was at best a collection of independent machines. It was not a composite machine under Note 3, because the machines are not fitted together to form a permanent whole. It was not a functional unit under Note 4 either: each device (head-filling, watering, compost-spreading) performs its own task and does not contribute to one clearly defined function. Measured against the EN’s own examples (an integrated irrigation system is a functional unit; a CCTV assembly is not), the apparatus falls on the wrong side of the line.
• In plain terms, a static aluminium shelf with no moving parts is understood as a structure or as furniture. Nobody would call it a machine.

Gate 2: are the shelves “parts”? No. Even if machinery existed, a part (following Saraswati Sugar Mills and Dharti Dredging) is an integral, essential component without which the article cannot function. Here every machine clamped onto the shelving is already complete and self-contained, and its mechanical and electrical operation does not depend on the shelves. The shelving only provides a surface. In the Court’s words:

“A surface supports an object but does not become a part of it.”

The Court illustrated the point with a car and a road. A car needs a road, and someone might even build a bespoke race track for one car, yet no one calls the road a “part” of the car.

Result. Heading 84.36 fails at both limbs, the exclusion Notes never apply, and the goods remain in heading 76.10. Applying GRI 6, the correct one-dash subheading within 76.10 is 7610.90 (“Other”), because the goods are not doors or windows of 7610.10. That gives HS 7610.90 and, in the Indian schedule, CTI 7610 90 10.

Why CESTAT’s order fell. It had two flaws. First, it invoked GRI 3(a) (the “more specific heading”) without a tie at GRI 1, which is an impermissible use of the rules out of sequence; Section XV Note 1(f) would in any case have resolved any overlap. Second, it based its “no other purpose” and “trade parlance” findings on a brochure and the supplier’s identity, without the objective, design-based evidence the law requires before goods are given a separate commercial identity.

Holding and final classification

Element	Determination
Heading	76.10: Aluminium structures … and parts of structures … prepared for use in structures
One-dash subheading (GRI 6)	7610.90: Other (not 7610.10, doors and windows)
HS six-digit code	7610.90
Indian Customs Tariff Item	7610 90 10: Structures
Heading 84.36 / CTI 8436 99 00	Rejected: the goods are neither “machinery” nor “parts” of machinery
Disposition	Appeal allowed; CESTAT Final Order dated 19.04.2024 set aside
Revenue effect	Short-levied duty of ₹21,01,983 plus interest recoverable (Sections 28 and 28AA, Customs Act, 1962); the importer loses the nil-duty benefit

Practitioner takeaways

1. The GRIs are a sequence, and you cannot pick from them in any order. Do not reach for the “most specific heading” test of GRI 3(a) until GRI 1 has actually produced a tie between two headings. Skipping straight to specificity is the error that sank the CESTAT order.
2. An exclusion in a Section or Chapter Note can decide the whole case. Section XV Note 1(f) (with the parallel exclusion in the EN to 76.10) turned the dispute into a one-heading inquiry. Check the exclusion Notes before arguing specificity.
3. “Machinery” means machinery. The wide definition in Section XVI Note 5 (“plant, equipment, apparatus, appliance”) works only inside the Section Notes. It does not enlarge a heading whose text says only “machinery”.
4. A composite machine, a functional unit and a loose collection of machines are three different things. Test Notes 3 and 4 against the facts: either the machines are permanently fitted together, or they contribute to one clearly defined function. Independent machines doing separate tasks meet neither test.
5. The threshold for a “part” is high. A part must be integral and essential to the article’s function. A mounting surface, base or platform that the machine does not depend on is not a part.
6. Classify the goods as imported. End use matters only where the heading invites it, explicitly or inherently, and only as the intended use evident from the goods’ objective characteristics. The importer’s stated future plans and its brochures do not count.
7. A separate commercial identity must be proved. A trade name (“mushroom growing rack”) supported only by marketing material and the supplier’s identity does not displace a clear statutory description.

The judgment has already been applied. In the Johnson Lifts case on parts of general use, CESTAT Chennai relied on Welkin Foods to hold that heading 84.31’s “solely or principally” wording allows use to be considered. For another 2026 Supreme Court ruling on classification method, see the n-Hexane case, where Chapter 29 prevailed over Chapter 27.

Authorities index (Notes and rules relied on)

Instrument	Use in the case
GRI 1 (with EN paragraphs II, IV and V)	Primacy of headings and Notes; titles have no legal bearing; sequencing
GRI 3 (with EN)	Reached only on a genuine tie; CESTAT’s misuse identified
GRI 6 (with EN)	Descent to one-dash subheading 7610.90; comparison at the same level
Section XV, Note 1(f)	Excludes Section XVI machinery from Section XV; the exclusion the case turned on
EN to heading 76.10	“Structure” criteria via the EN to 73.08; exclusion of parts of Chapters 84 to 88
EN to heading 73.08	Definition of structures; expressly lists “shelving … stalls and racks”
Section XVI, Notes 2, 3, 4 and 5	Parts rules; composite machines; functional units; definition of “machine”
Chapter 84, Note 7	Principal-purpose rule for multi-purpose machines
EN to Chapter 84	Headings 84.25 to 84.78 grouped by field of industry
Saraswati Sugar Mills (2014) 15 SCC 625; Dharti Dredging (2023) 18 SCC 103	Test for a “part”: integral and essential to function

---

Caveats

• This analysis works at the WCO six-digit level (HS 2022). The decision turns on Notes that are identical in the Indian First Schedule and the HSN, so the Explanatory Notes were relied on as a safe guide to interpretation (following Madhan Agro). Where a national schedule departs from the HSN, that alignment must be checked again.
• The Indian eight-digit CTI 7610 90 10 is a national subdivision below the harmonized six-digit code 7610.90 and is reproduced only as it appears in the judgment.
• The outcome depends on the facts. Had the assembly met the functional-unit test of Note 4, or had the shelving been an integral component that does part of the work, Gates 1 and 2 could have come out differently.
• This is educational commentary only and not a binding tariff ruling, which only the customs authority can issue.