Case Law Details
In re Viewsonic Technologies India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, has dismissed an application by Viewsonic Technologies India Pvt Ltd, which sought an advance ruling on the classification of certain data projectors and their eligibility under Exemption Notification No. 24/2005-Customs. The application, filed on June 6, 2024, pertained to the classification of various data projector models under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 85286200. A key issue was whether these products qualified for duty exemption under the amended notification.
During the hearings, the applicant’s representative reiterated that a previous ruling—CAAR/Mum/ARC/97/2024—had already addressed this issue. The company had challenged that ruling before the Madras High Court (CMA No. 2268 of 2024). The CAAR, Mumbai, questioned why the present application should not be dismissed pending the outcome of the High Court proceedings. The applicant requested additional time to seek final disposal of the case before the court. The Department did not appear for the hearings.
The CAAR noted that Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, prohibits the authority from ruling on matters that are already pending before a court or tribunal. Given that Viewsonic Technologies had already filed an appeal before the Madras High Court challenging a previous ruling on the same classification and exemption issue, the authority ruled that the current application was not maintainable.
Citing legal provisions, CAAR Mumbai upheld its decision to reject the application, emphasizing that a ruling on the matter was already under judicial review. The case underscores the limitations of advance rulings when related litigation is pending before higher judicial authorities. The application was accordingly dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Viewsonic Technologies India Private Limited, (having IEC No. 0409009709) and hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’, in short) filed application (CAAR-1) for advance ruling before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai (CAAR in short). The said application was received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 06.06.2024 along with enclosures in terms of Section 28H (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ also). The applicant is seeking advance ruling on the issue of classification of Data Projector Model Nos. LS500WP, LS510WE, LS510WP, LS560WE, LS610WHE, LS711W, LS740W, LS610HDHE, LS711HD, LS740HD, LS741HD and PX704HD under CTI 85286200 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and eligibility of Si. No. 17 of Exemption Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.2005, as amended by Notification No. 67/2016 dated 31.12.2016.
2.1 A personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 06.01.2025 @ 12.00 PM, through virtual mode. Shri Radhakrishnan, authorized representative of the applicant, appeared for the hearing and reiterated the contention filed with the application. He submitted that the earlier advance ruling issued by this authority in the applicant’s own case, Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/97/2024, has been challenged before the Hon’ble Madras High Court (CMA No. 2268 of 2024). When specifically asked about the latest status of the case and why the present application should not be disposed of subject to the outcome of the Hon’ble High Court’s order, considering that the case has been pending for a long time, he requested three weeks’ time, stating that they are seeking final disposal of the case before the Hon’ble Court.
The next personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 10.02.2025 @ 12.00 PM, through virtual mode. Shri Madan G., the authorized representative of the applicant, appeared for the hearing and reiterated the contention filed with the application. During the hearing, it was noted that the applicant had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in his own case, challenging the ruling of this authority regarding the non-eligibility of exemption on Data Projectors. The case is currently pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The representative was informed that, in accordance with the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, this authority is barred from entertaining an application where an appeal on the same matter is already pending before a court.
No one appeared on behalf of the Department during these hearing.
4. I note that Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/97/2024, dated July 10, 2024, was issued by this authority to the applicant regarding the classification of Data Projectors and their eligibility under Serial No. 17 of Exemption Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated March 1, 2005, as amended. In this ruling, the authority held that the subject goods are not eligible for the benefit under Serial No. 17 of the said exemption notification. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Madras High Court (CMA No. 2268 of 2024) challenging the ruling. This matter is currently pending before the Hon’ble High Court.
5. The relevant excerpts of subsection (2) of section 28-1 of Customs Act, 1962 is produced below:
“(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) same as in a matter decided already by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court:”
7. In view of the forgoing facts and records of the case, I hereby observe and hold that a similar matter is currently pending before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Viewsonic Technologies India Private Limited Vs. The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai & Others [CMA No. 2268 of 2024] Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-I (2) and proviso (a) of the sub-section (2) of Section 28-1 of Customs Act, 1962, 1 hereby do not allow the application.
8. The application is not allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
