Case Law Details
In re Pridel Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
CAAR find that the dispensation granted to the marine containers by way of duty exemption is subject to observance of specified conditions mentioned in the notifications themselves and supplemented by circulars issued from time to time. Circular No. 51 of 2020 issued by the Board seeks to supersede the earlier Circulars Nos. 69 and 73 of 2002. It states that provision of Circular no. 31 of 2005 covers the procedure prescribed for clearance of only marine containers and clearance of all other durable containers other than marine containers would be governed by guidelines issued under Circular No. 51 of 2020. It is imperative that the issues as raised in the CAAR-1 application are interpreted in the light of provisions of above-mentioned notifications and circulars only. CAAR cannot issue a ruling on difficulties in compliance to the Circular No. 51 of 2020 due to the fact that these issues are certainly not within the scope of 28 H (2) (b)- applicability of notifications issued under section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and 28 H (2) (c)- principles to be adopted for the purposes of determination of value of the goods under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the so-called gaps in the interpretation of notification no. 104 of 1995, as amended from time to time, cannot be addressed by advance ruling mechanism.
5.10 I also observe in the instant case that there are multiple entities viz. ULD container supplier, actual users, i.e., importers/exporters who are using ULD containers, third party facilitator like present applicant, shipping lines/cargo handlers or their representatives and various jurisdictional Customs authorities having supervision over movement of such ULD containers. Accounting and declaration of inward and outward movement of ULD containers at the time of import and export and subsequent need for furnishing security in order to safeguard the Revenue interest need to be understood only under the extant legal framework governed by notifications and circulars discussed earlier for performing Customs Compliance Verification (CCV) tasks like accounting for movements, execution of bonds/furnishing of security as well as declaration of ULD container details in respective import/export documents. And due to this the CAAR cannot consider the present advance ruling application.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I have arrived at the conclusion that the issues on which the advance ruling has been requested do not fall within the scope of Section 28H2(b) and (c) of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus are beyond the jurisdiction of CAAR. Therefore, in view of above, I refrain from issuing any ruling in respect of the questions raised in the CAAR-1 application.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
