In re Wipro Pari Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, in In re Wipro Pari Private Limited, rejected a petition seeking clarification and rectification of Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/108/2025-26 dated 17 November 2025 concerning the applicability of Notification No. 134/94-Customs dated 22 June 1994 to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) units. The original ruling had permitted the import of second-hand or used goods and equipment for repair, refurbishment, reconditioning, re-engineering and related activities followed by re-export, subject to the conditions prescribed in the notification. The applicant contended that the ruling’s affirmative conclusion was contradictory because the notification required compliance with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs operations in bonded warehouses. Since the applicant operated as a DTA unit outside the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse (MOOWR) Scheme, it requested permission to claim the exemption without obtaining the approvals associated with bonded warehousing.
The applicant argued that alternative safeguards, including bonds or bank guarantees, detailed input-output records, serial-number tracking and compulsory re-export, could adequately protect government revenue. It also relied on other customs exemption notifications to demonstrate that repair and re-export activities could be undertaken outside bonded warehouses. However, the jurisdictional Commissionerate maintained that Notification No. 134/94-Customs expressly required operations to be undertaken in accordance with Section 65, and that the Authority could not waive this statutory condition. Examining Regulations 21 and 22 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021, the CAAR held that modification or rectification was permissible only where the original ruling involved a mistake of law or fact or an apparent error on the record. Operational difficulties faced by a DTA unit did not establish such an error, and alternative compliance arrangements could not substitute for conditions expressly prescribed under the exemption notification.
Accordingly, the CAAR rejected Wipro Pari Private Limited’s rectification petition, holding that the original affirmative ruling was expressly subject to compliance with Notification No. 134/94-Customs and could not be interpreted as granting an unconditional exemption. The Authority clarified that a DTA unit could not disregard the Section 65 requirement merely because it did not operate under the MOOWR framework. It found no apparent mistake warranting rectification under Regulation 22 or mistake of law or fact justifying modification under Regulation 21. Consequently, the original advance ruling remained unchanged, and the petition was disposed of without separately determining the applicant’s entitlement to any warehousing licence, permission or approval.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI
M/s Wipro Pad Private– Limited (IEC: 3191001832) (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) has filed a petition before the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “CAAR” or “the Authority”), seeking clarification and rectification of Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/I08/2025-26 dated 17.11.2025 regarding the applicability of Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994 to DTA units in terms of regulation 21 and 22 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulation, 2021.
2. The aforesaid Advance Ruling was pronounced on the questions of applicability of Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994 on importation of used goods/ equipment for refurbishment/ re-processing/ re-conditioning/ re-designing/ re-manufacturing/ re-assembling/ re-tooling/ re-pair/ software or Programming Uploading/ Integration/ Testing/ tooling validation and other related activities ofAutomation Systems and Materials Handling Systems on re-export basis. The said Ruling held that:
8. In light of the above facts, discussions and observation, my views on the questions raised by the applicant are as under:
a. Whether they can import various second-hand or used goods (Indian or Foreign origin) for refiirbishment/ re-processing/ re-conditioning/ re-designing/ re-manufacturing/ re-assembling/ re-tooling/ re-pair/ software or Programming Uploading/ Integration/ Testing/ tooling validation and other related activities.
Ans. I answer in affirmative subject to conditions specified in the Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994 and as long as the goods remain identifiable with the origin imported goods, and do not result in creation of a new product/goods.
c. Whether they are eligible to claim the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 134/94—Cus Dated 22.06.1994 under MOOWR Scheme;
Ans. They can either claim the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994 or avail the benefits under MOOWR Scheme however; both cannot be used simultaneously.
d. Necessary compliance requirements for handling waste generated during the refurbishment/ re-processing/ re-conditioning/ re-designing/ re-manufacturing/ reassembling/ re-tooling/ re-pair/ software or Programming Uploading/ Integration/ Testing/ tooling validation and other related activities and ensuring adherence to environmental and safety standards/laws.
Ans. The applicant must comply with E-Waste (Management) Rules 2016, Battery Waste Management Rules 2022, Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016, and Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, and any other rules and regulations issued by the concerned state pollution control board and other regulatory bodies ensuring authorised disposal through registered recyclers.
e. Whether goods imported into a DTA unit for repair/refurbishment and not cleared for domestic consumption are exempted from duty payment and if the exemption be claimed under NN134/94 and its conditions?
Ans. I answer in affirmative subject to conditions specified in the Notification No. 134/94-Customs dated 22.06.1994.
f. Whether import duty would be payable on the waste generated during the refurbishment/ re processing/ re-conditioning/ re-designing/ re-manufacturing/ reassembling/ re-tooling/ re-pair/ software or Programming Uploading/ Integration/ Testing/ tooling validation and other related activities?
Ans. The import duty would be payable on the waste generated during the various processes mentioned by the Applicant if the said waste in not exported by the applicant.
f how to define the wastage or scarp value?
Ans. The wastage or scrap value would be determined under the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. The applicant has mentioned the following grounds for clarification and rectification of the said advance ruling:
3.1 The Applicant has submitted that, in the advance ruling issued in the matter, the Authority answered the question as to whether goods imported into a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit for repair/refurbishment, without being cleared for domestic consumption, are exempt from payment of customs duty under Notification No. 134/94-Customs dated 22.06.1994, in the affirmative, subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in the said notification. The relevant portion is reproduced below:
“Whether goods imported into a DTA unit for repair/refurbishment and not cleared for domestic consumption are exempted from duty payment and if the exemption be claimed under NN134/94 and its conditions?
Ans. I answer in affirmative subject to conditions specified in the Notification No. 134/94-Customs dated 22.06.1994.”
3.2 The Applicant has pointed out that one of the conditions specified in Notification No. 134/94-Customs is that the repairs or reconditioning must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3.3 The Applicant has submitted that the primary objective was to determine whether a DTA unit can import goods for repair/refurbishment under Notification No. 134/94-Cus without the necessity of operating as a Bonded Warehouse. The Applicant has stated that its application specifically highlighted the practical and operational difficulties faced by a DTA unit in complying with warehousing requirements while seeking the benefit of the said notification.
3.4 The Applicant has further submitted that, being a DTA unit, it does not operate under the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse (MOOWR) scheme. According to the Applicant, insisting upon compliance with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962,,, would effectively render the benefit of the ruling unavailable to a DTA unit that does not operate under the bonded warehousing framework. The Applicant has, therefore, pointed out an apparent contradiction between the affirmative ruling regarding the eligibility of a DTA unit and the requirement of compliance with Section 65, which, according to it, necessitates operation within the bonded warehousing framework.
3.5. The Applicant has also referred to other notifications dealing with the repair and re-export of goods, namely Notification Nos. I 53/94-Cus, 32/97-Cus and 45/2017-Cus, and has submitted that these notifications do not expressly stipulate compliance with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. According to the Applicant, this distinction recognises that DTA units operate under a regulatory framework different from that applicable to bonded warehouses.
3.6. In view of the above, the Applicant has requested the Authority to clarify that the affirmative ruling under Notification No. I 34/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994, in respect of a DTA unit, would be applicable without requiring the unit to obtain a licence or approval under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, provided that the other applicable conditions, including those relating to re-export and maintenance of accounts, are fulfilled. The Applicant has contended that, in the absence of such clarification, the ruling, although affirmative in its conclusion, would remain practically incapable of implementation by a DTA unit not operating as a bonded warehouse.
4. Port of Import and reply from jurisdictional Com m issionerate: The said ruling indicated that the applicant intend to import the subject goods at the jurisdiction of Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Pune, GST Bhawan, 41/A, Sesoon Road, P.une ” 411001. Accordingly, the petition was forwarded to the concerned jurisdictional Commissionerate for furnishing their comments vide letter dated 05.05.2026. The Comments have been received from the jurisdiction Commissionerate vide letter dated 13.05.2026 as follow:
4.1 The notifications quoted by the applicant are subject specific as under:
I. Notification No. 153/94-Customs: It deals with Exemption to goods of foreign origin imported for repairs and return — Theatrical equipments including costumes imported by visiting foreign troupes, pontoons for speedy loading and unloading of imported goods -Photographic, filming audio, video and radio equipments and tapes imported for short films, feature films and documentaries, goods for mountaineering expeditions Tags or labels or printed polythene bags for use an articles for export.
II. Notification No. 32/97-Customs : It deals with imports under IGCR scheme.
III. Notification No. 45/2017-Customs: It deals with goods reimported into India which were earlier cleared for export under Duty Drawback Scheme.
Thus, none of the these above referred Notifications as claimed by the applicant deals with the situation where the goods are imported duty free for the purpose of repairs/refurbishing/ reconditioning etc. and return back.
4.2 The Advance Ruling Authority has correctly passed the order mentioning the conditions to be fulfilled by the Applicant for claiming exemption from import duties for the processes they wish to undertake (repairs/re-conditioning/refurbishing); and the governing Notification No. 134/94-Customs stipulates the condition that the process of import and carrying out operations like repairs/reconditioning/refurbishing etc. must be carried out under the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4.3 The applicant’s plea that the operations they wish to undertake should be permitted in a normal DTA Unit without fulfilling the condition of operating under section 65 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be accepted as the Governing Notification under which the Import duty exemption is claimed being a conditional notification and it cannot be over ruled or modified by the Advance Ruling Authority.
4.4 The purpose of imposing provisions of Section 65 of Customs Act, 1962 is to protect the Govt. revenue and to prevent misuse of duty exemption and avoid any possibility of diversion of imported goods and/or replacement of imported goods by goods of similar description.
4.5 In case of section 65 warehoused goods the goods movement takes place under Customs Supervision and the probability of the diversion/misplacement of exempted imported goods is almost NIL.
5. Applicant’s Reply to the Comments of the Jurisdictional Commissionerate: The Applicant, in its rebuttal and rejoinder submissions filed in response to the comments of the Jurisdictional Commissionerate, has made the following submissions:
5.1 Intent Behind Referencing Parallel Exemption Notifications: The Jurisdictional Commissionerate has observed that Notification Nos. 153/94-Customs, 32/97-Customs, and 45/2017-Customs are subject-specific. The learned Commissionerate noted that these encompass specific items like theatrical equipment, the IGCR scheme, or re-imported goods previously cleared under the Duty Drawback Scheme, and therefore do not directly cover the broad import of foreign used goods for general refurbishment and return. •
- We entirely concur with the distinction drawn by the learned Commissionerate regarding the specific scope of those individual notifications.
- We wish to clarify that the Applicant does not seek to claim benefits under these alternative notifications for the present transactions.
- Our objective was to demonstrate that Indian Customs law inherently recognizes, permits, and regulates repair, reconditioning, and job-work within a Domestic TariffArea (MA) unit without forcing the unit to operate as a bonded warehouse.
- Our intention was to highlight that the legal framework routinely accommodates robust compliance and identity-tracking models within a standard DTA setup without necessarily requiring the physical constraints of a bonded warehouse. In those parallel notifications, revenue safety is successfully managed via alternative regulatory mechanisms (such as bonds, bank guarantees, and end-use tracking) rather than physical customs warehousing. Therefore, the concept of a DTA unit executing repair and reexport without Section 65 intervention is well-established in the Customs regulatory framework.
5.2 Seeking a Harmonious Integration of the Advance Ruling: The Commissionerate has rightly pointed out that Notification No. 134/94-Cusoms is a conditional notification, and its statutory requirements must be respected.
- We completely agree that statutory conditions arc binding and cannot be arbitrarily set aside
- Our request for clarification is directed entirely toward achieving a practical, harmonious integration between the affirmative ruling granted to us and our established nature as a DTA unit.
- In our original application, we respectfully sought a determination on whether a DTA unit could access the benefits of Notification No. 134/94-Cusoms.
- Since the Hon’ble Authority kindly answered this query in the affirmative, but the notification text contains a reference to Section 65 (which legally corresponds to a Section 58 warehousing license), an operational ambiguity arises for a non-warehoused entity.
- However, by strictly tying this affirmative answer to Section 65 compliance .(which is legally and operationally restricted to bonded warehouses under Section 58), the ruling effectively nullifies its own answer. A DTA unit and a Section 65 Bonded Warehouse are mutually exclusive operational frameworks. If a DTA unit is forced to convert into a bonded warehouse to use the ruling, then the ruling has not answered the query for a DTA unit, making the order practically unimplementable.
5.3 Aligning with Revenue Safeguards and Compliance Standards: The Jurisdictional Commissionerate has underscored that the core purpose of invoking Section 65 is to protect government revenue, prevent the diversion of imported goods, and ensure strict customs supervision.
- We fully endorse and share the Commissionerate’s objective of safeguarding revenue and preventing any potential misuse of duty exemptions.
- As a reputable DTA unit, we are completely prepared to comply with alternative, strict, and verifiable tracking safeguards to satisfy the spirit of the notification conditions, such as:
- Executing a comprehensive Continuity Bond / Bank Guarantee covering the full differential duty amount.
- Maintaining meticulous Input-Output accounting records and serial number tracking to verify that the exact same imported goods are re-exported after refurbishment.
- Enforcing an absolute requirement for a Section 65 license for an established DTA unit introduces severe structural, financial, and operational compliance burdens that defeat the very purpose of approaching the CAAR for clear business predictability. For a DTA unit operating outside the bonded warehousing framework, the benefit of .Notification No. 134/94-Cus can be availed for full duty exemptiolis for repairireftirINAMent activities, provided alternative monitoring controls (such as identity tracking, detailed accounting, and execution of appropriate bonds/guarantees) are strictly maintained to the satisfaction of the cleared port authorities.
6. Details of Personal Hearing: A personal hearing in the matter was held on 12.10.2026. During the hearing, the authorised representative of the Applicant submitted that the applicant seeks rectification of the operative portion of the Advance Ruling issued in their case. It was submitted that the DTA unit can avail the benefit of Notification No. 134/94-Cus without reference to the terms and condition prescribed under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Authorised representative further contended that the observation regarding the DTA unit and the bonded warehouse appear to be contradictory and therefore require rectification.
6.1 Nobody appeared for the P11 from the Department.
7. Discussion and Findings
7.1 Ihave carefully considered the petition filed by the applicant, the grounds advanced in support of the request for clarification and rectification of Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/108/2025-26 dated 17.11.2025, the comments furnished by the jurisdictional Commissionerate, the rejoinder submitted by the Applicant and the submissions made during the personal hearing held on 12.10.2026. 1 have also examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994, and the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021..
7.2The issue for consideration is whether the operative portion of the original Advance Ruling requires modification or rectification to permit the Applicant, as a DTA unit to avail the benefit of Notification No. 134/94-Cusdated 22.06.1994 without complying with the conditions requiring the specified operations to be undertaken in accordance with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Applicant has contended that the affirmative answer in the original ruling, when read with the said condition, creates an apparent contradiction operate under the MOOWR Scheme.
7.3 At the outset, it is necessary to distinguish between modification under Regulation 21 and rectification under Regulation 22 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021… Regulation 21 permits modification of an order or advance ruling where the Authority is satisfied that it was pronounced under a mistake of law or fact, subject to the prescribed conditions and an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. Regulation 22 permits amendment of an advance ruling to rectify a mistake apparent from the record, subject to the conditions specified therein. The relevant provisions are reproduced below:
21. Modification of order or advance ruling
The Authority may suo motu or on a petition by the applicant or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, but before pronouncement of an advance ruling or before an advance ruling pronounced has been given effect to , on being satisfied that an order or advance ruling was pronounced under mistake of law or fact, modify suchsuch order or advance ruling in such respects as it considers appropriate, after allowing the applicant and Principal Commissioner or Commissioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
22. Rectification of mistakes
1. The Authority may, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amen any advance ruling pronounced by it before such ruling has been given effect to.
2. Such amendment may be made suo motu or when the mistake is brought to the notice of the Authority by the applicant or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, but only after allowing the applicant and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
It is evident that these provisions do not confer an unrestricted power to reconsider the merits of an advance ruling or to dispense with a condition expressly prescribed under an exemption notification. The applicability of these provisions must be examined in the context of the nature °Utile alleged error and the statutory limitations governing the exercise ofthe Authority’s powers.
7.4 I find that the original Advance Ruling answered the question concerning the eligibility of goods imported into a DTA unit for repair or refurbishment under Notification No. 134/94-Cusdated 22.06.1994 in the affirmative, expressly subject to the conditions specified in the said notification. The relevant portion are reproduced below:
d. Whether goods imported into a DTA unit for repair refurbishment and not cleared for domestic consumption are exempted from duty payment and if the exemption be claimed under NN134/94 and its conditions?
Ans. I answer in affirmative subject to conditions specified in the Notification No. 134/94-Customs dated 22.06.1994.
The affirmative answer cannot be read in isolation or construed as an unconditional grant of exemption form customs duty. The expression “subject to conditions specified in the Notification” forms an integral part of the ruling and. qualifies the conclusion reached therein.
7.5 Notification No. 134/94-Cusdated 22.06.1994 exempts the specified goods imported for carrying out repairs, reconditioning, reengineering, testing, calibration or maintenance, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows:
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 103-Customs, dated the 5th December, 1970, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods specified in the Table annexed hereto, when imported into India for carrying out repairs, reconditioning, reengineering, testing, calibration or maintenance (including service), form the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), and from the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon under section 3 of thesaid Customs
TariffAct, subject to the conditions that-
a. the repairs, reconditioning, reengineering, testing, caliberation or maintenance (including service) as the case may be, is undertaken in accordance with the provisions of section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and
b. the goods repaired, reconditioned, reengineered, tested, caliberated or maintained (including service) as the case may be, are exported and are not cleared outside the Unit.
******
The notification thus expressly links the exemption to compliance with the prescribed conditions, including the requirement relating to Section 65. The Authority cannot interpret the affirmative answer in the original ruling as dispensing with this express condition.
7.6 The Applicant has contended that the requirement to undertake operations in accordance with Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, makes the benefit of the notification practically unavailable to a DTA unit that does not operate as a bonded warehouse. It has further argued that the affirmative answer given in the original ruling is rendered ineffective if compliance with Section 65 is insisted upon.
I have considered this submission. However, an operational difficulty arising from the statutory conditions attached to an exemption does not establish that the original ruling contains an apparent mistake or an error of law or fact warranting rectification or modification. The question whether the Applicant can undertake the proposed operations under the applicable statutory framework must be distinguished from the question whether the Authority can dispense with a condition expressly stipulated in the exemption notification.
7.7 The distinction between a DTA unit and a unit operating under theMOOWR Scheme is relevant to the Applicant’s grievance. However, the mere fact that a unit is situated in the DTA does not establish an entitlement to claim the benefit o Notification No. 134/94-Cusindependently of the conditions specified therein. Similarly, the fact that the Applicant does not presently operate under the MOOWR Schemedoes not render the reference to Section 65 in the notification inapplicable. The original Advance Ruling determined eligibility subject to the conditions of the notification; it did not hold that every DTA unit could claim the exemption irrespective of the applicable statutory requirements.
7.8 I further find that the Applicant’s reliance on Notification Nos. 153/94-Cus, 32/97-Cus and 45/2017-Cus does not establish that the condition prescribed under Notification No. 134-94-Cus can be dispensed with. The Applicant has also clarified in its rejoinder that it does not seek the benefit of those notifications for the present transactions. Those notifications operate within their respective scopes and subject to their own conditions. The regulatory arrangements prescribed under separate notifications cannot be imported into Notification No. 134/94-Custo substitute or remove an express condition of the latter.
7.9 The Applicant has also offered to maintain detailed input-output accounts, undertake serial-number-wise tracking of imported goods, execute a continuity bonds or bank guarantees and other verifiable safeguards to ensure that the imported goods are remain identifiable and are re-exported after the prescribed operations. These measures may assist in protecting revenue and ensuring traceability. However, the issue before this Authority is whether such safeguards can be accepted, through rectification or modification of the original Advance Ruling, as substitutes for the condition prescribed under Notification No. 134-94-Cus. In the absence of a legal provision authorising such substitution, the proposed safeguards cannot be treated as replacing an express statutory condition of the exemption.
7.10 Flaying regard to the foregoing, I find that the original Advance Ruling answered the question of eligibility subject to the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994. The Applicant has not established that the operative portion contains an apparent mistake requiring rectification under Regulation 22 or that the ruling was pronounced under a mistake of law of fact warranting modification under Regulation 21 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021. The alleged contradiction arises from the Applicant’s contention that it should be permitted to avail the exemption without complying with the condition concerning Section 65 of Customs Act, 1962. Such relief would require reconsideration of the substantive conditions governing the exemption rather than correction of an apparent error in the original ruling.
7.11 Accordingly, subject to the Authority being satisfied that the statutory preconditions for entertaining the petition under the applicable regulation are fulfilled, I find no grounds to amend or modify the operative portion of Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/108/2025-26 dated 17.11.2025 in the manner sought by the Applicant. The original ruling shall continue to operate in accordance with its terms and remain subject to the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 134/94-Cus dated 22.06.1994. This conclusion is confined to the petition for clarification and rectification and does not constitute a separate determination of the Applicant’s entitlement to any licence, permission or approval under the warehousing provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the request of M/s Wipro Pari Private Limited for clarification and rectification of Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/108/2025-26 dated 17.11.2025, to the extent that it seeks to dispense with the condition prescribed under Notification No. 134/94-Cusdated 22.06.1994 concerningSection 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, is rejected. The original Advance Ruling shall continue to operate in accordance with its terms and the conditions prescribed under the said notification.
9. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
