CAAR Denied Advance Ruling Due to Pending HC Case on EV Parts Classification Issue

In re Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)

The applicant filed an application on 16.06.2025 before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, seeking a ruling on the classification of parts, components, sub-parts, and sub-assemblies of electrically operated vehicles under their respective tariff headings or under CTH 8703. Earlier, by order dated 19.11.2025, the Authority had refrained from issuing a ruling as a similar issue involving the applicant was pending before the Bombay High Court.

Subsequently, the applicant filed a request dated 23.12.2025 seeking modification or rectification of the earlier order. It contended that the goods involved in the application differed from those in the pending writ petition, as the earlier matter related to parts for IEC vehicles, while the present application concerned parts of battery electric vehicles (BEV). The applicant proposed to assemble and manufacture three critical components—brake system, front and rear axle, and suspension system—through a combination of imported sub-parts, domestically sourced components, and in-house assembly activities.

During the personal hearing on 24.02.2026, the applicant reiterated its request for classification of imported parts either under specific tariff headings or under CTH 8703, along with applicable concessional duty rates. No representative appeared on behalf of the Department.

The Authority examined the submissions and noted that the issue of classification of parts, components, and assemblies as completely knocked down (CKD) kits was already pending before the Bombay High Court in the applicant’s own case. Referring to Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Authority observed that it cannot allow an application where the same question is pending before any court.

Accordingly, the Authority held that the issue raised in the present application was similar or identical to the matter pending before the High Court. On this basis, it declined to pronounce any advance ruling. It further held that the request for modification or rectification of the earlier order was not maintainable. The application was disposed of without issuing any ruling.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited having IE Code 0307019390, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) filed an application in Form CAAR-1 on 16.06.2025 for seeking an advance ruling under section 28-H of the Customs Act 1962 before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai (CAAR, in short). The applicant sought advance ruling on the issue of classification of parts and components, sub-parts and sub-assemblies of electrically operated vehicle under their respective heading/sub-headings or under CTH 8703.

2. An order was issued by this authority on 19.11.2025 refraining to pass the ruling in as much a case of the applicant was already pending before Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the similar/identical issue of classification. Now, the applicant vide application dated 23.12.2025, under regulation 21 and 22 of CAAR Regulations, 2021 has applied for modification and/or rectification of the Advance Ruling Order No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/22&23/2025-26 dated 19.11.2025.

3. The applicant has submitted that the subject goods mentioned in the application dated 16.06.2025 are different from the goods mentioned in the said WP no. 2051 of 2025. The WP was filed against a SCN covering import of parts and components for manufacturing of IEC vehicles whereas the subject goods in the present application are parts and components of BEV. The Applicant is proposing to assemble and manufacture three critical parts, in-house, namely (a) brake system, (b) front and rear axle, and (c) suspension system, at the CSN plant. Such parts are proposed to be assembled by way of:

i. importing various sub-parts/ sub-components/ sub-assemblies,

ii. domestically sourcing parts and components/ sub-parts viz. suspension spring front, suspension protective cap, suspension protective cover, stabilizer rear, brake pipes front and rear (left & right), etc. in India; and

iii. undertaking assembling and manufacturing activities.

4. Details of various sub-parts/ sub-components proposed to be imported as well as locally procured to assemble and manufacture the. aforesaid three critical parts are briefly tabulated hereunder, for ease of reference:

TABLE-A

5. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 24.02.2026 wherein the authorized representative of the applicant Shri Rohit Jain-Advocate and other representatives appeared for personal hearing in the matter on behalf of the applicant. They reiterated the contention filed with the original application and submitted to seek ruling on the specific question that whether (a) The parts and components to be imported would be classified under respective heading/sub-heading of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or as an Electrically operated vehicle under CTH 8703, and (b) In case the subject imported goods are classified under CTH 8703 what will be the concessional rate of duty as per sr. no. 526A of the notification no. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017. They submitted that the matter is beyond the statutory mandate of Section 28-1(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and merits re­consideration.

5.1 Nobody appeared on behalf of the Department for hearing.

6. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, record of personal hearing and provisions of statutes. All the facts/submissions have already been considered by this authority and after due consideration, order has been issued. However, the applicant has requested for modification/rectification of the said order matter reinstated. In this regard, after careful consideration of the facts/submission, this authority has again observed that an appeal vide WP© No. 2051 of 2025 is pending before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in applicant’s own case in a similar matter regarding classification of parts/components/assemblies/sub-assemblies/accessories as completely knocked down (CKD) kits of motor vehicle in unassembled form.

7. In this regard, the relevant excerpts of subsection (2) of section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962 are reproduced below:

“Section 28-I. Procedure on receipt of application. — (1) On receipt of an application, the Authority shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs and, if necessary, call upon him to furnish the relevant records:

Provided that where any records have been called for by the Authority in any case, such records shall, as soon as possible, be returned to the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs.

(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for, by order, either allow or reject the application:

Provided that the Authority shall not allow the application where the question raised in the application is –

a. already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court;

b. the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.

Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity has been given to the applicant of being heard:

Provided also that where the application is rejected, reasons _.for such rejection shall be given in the order.”

8. In view of the forgoing facts and records of the case, legal provisions, I reaffirm that the question raised in this very application on the similar/identical matter is pending before Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, considering the provisions of Section 28-1, sub-section (2), proviso (a) of Customs Act, 1962 and binding judicial discipline, ruling cannot be pronounced.

9. I refrain from passing an Advance Ruling in the case. The application seeking modification in the earlier order dated 19.11.2025 is non-maintainable and is disposed of accordingly.