Case Law Details
In re Viewsonic Technologies India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, has rejected the advance ruling application of Viewsonic Technologies India Private Limited concerning the classification and tax exemption eligibility of certain data projectors. The company sought a ruling on whether its projectors fell under Customs Tariff Item 85286200 and qualified for exemption under Serial No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005, as amended. However, CAAR declined to entertain the application, citing Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which bars advance rulings on matters already pending before a court.
During the hearings held in January and February 2025, ViewSonic’s representatives informed the authority that an earlier ruling (CAAR/Mum/ARC/97/2024) in the company’s own case had been challenged before the Madras High Court (CMA No. 2268 of 2024). The company sought additional time to secure a final order from the High Court, but CAAR reiterated that, under the law, it could not adjudicate an issue already under judicial review. No representative from the customs department appeared for the hearings.
CAAR emphasized that Section 28-I(2)(a) of the Customs Act prohibits ruling on cases where the same issue is under consideration by a court or tribunal. Given that the Madras High Court is already hearing Viewsonic’s challenge to the prior ruling, CAAR determined that proceeding with the application would be legally untenable. The authority noted that its previous ruling had already denied exemption for the data projectors in question, and any reconsideration would depend on the High Court’s final decision.
In conclusion, CAAR Mumbai formally rejected the application and disposed of the case, underscoring that legal provisions prevent duplicate proceedings on the same issue. The decision highlights procedural constraints in customs adjudication and reinforces that advance rulings cannot override or interfere with pending judicial appeals.
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 13.05.2024 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. PA504W, PA503XE, PA503W, PA503SE, PS501W 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 20241 Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-1 (2) and proviso (a) of the sub-section (2) of Section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962, I hereby do not allow the application.
8. The application is not allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
