In re Credence International (CAAR Delhi)
The application in In re Credence International (CAAR Delhi) concerned a request for an advance ruling under Section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962 on the classification of roasted betel nut/areca nut. The applicant filed Form CAAR-1 on 06.10.2025 before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Delhi. During scrutiny, it was noticed that the applicant had cited two different jurisdictional Port Commissionerates—Kolkata and Tuticorin—as concerned authorities. However, the application fee in the form of a demand draft had been issued only in favour of the Tuticorin Commissionerate. As per the applicable provisions, a separate application accompanied by a separate fee is required for each Port Commissionerate.
In view of this discrepancy, a Deficiency Memo dated 15.10.2025 was issued to the applicant, directing rectification of the defect. As no response was received, a reminder letter dated 11.11.2025 was subsequently issued, granting an additional seven days to comply. Despite these opportunities, the applicant did not submit any response or rectify the deficiency.
The Authority referred to Regulation 8 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021, which governs the procedure upon receipt of an application. The regulation mandates that any defect or deficiency must be communicated to the applicant, that the applicant must rectify the deficiency within the prescribed time, and that failure to do so requires the application to be placed before the Authority for appropriate orders. Regulation 8(6) specifically empowers the Authority to proceed when deficiencies are not removed within the granted time.
