Custom Advance Ruling Application Rejected Due to Wrong Jurisdiction Address

In re AIL Dixon Technologies Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)

The case before the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling Mumbai concerned an application filed by the applicant seeking an advance ruling on the import classification of a 5G Communication Module (FN990A40/A28) under the Customs Act, 1962. The application was submitted on 26.12.2025 in accordance with Section 28H(1) of the Act, and personal hearings were conducted on 24.02.2026 and 13.03.2026.

Upon examination of the records, the Authority noted that the applicant had provided an address located in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. As per Regulation 6(2) of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021, jurisdiction is determined based on the address furnished in the application. Since the provided address falls under the jurisdiction of CAAR Delhi and not CAAR Mumbai, the Authority held that the application was not maintainable before it.

The applicant subsequently requested, via email dated 25.03.2026, that the application be transferred to CAAR Delhi. However, the Authority observed that there is no provision under the applicable regulations permitting transfer of an application from one Advance Ruling Authority to another. This position was communicated to the applicant on 26.03.2026.

In the absence of any legal provision allowing such transfer, the Authority declined the request. It clarified that the applicant remains free to file a fresh application before the appropriate authority, namely CAAR Delhi.

Accordingly, exercising powers under Regulation 6(2) of the CAAR Regulations, 2021, the Authority refrained from issuing any ruling on the merits of the case due to lack of jurisdiction. The application was therefore disposed of without adjudication.

The order further notes that any appeal against the advance ruling would lie before the jurisdictional High Court within 60 days, and that an advance ruling remains valid for five years unless there is a change in law or facts, or if obtained through misrepresentation.

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

A copy of this order made under sub-section (2) of Section 28-1 of the Customs Act, 1962 is granted to the concerned free of charge.

Any appeal against this Advance Ruling order shall lie before the jurisdictional High Court of concerned jurisdiction, within 60 days from the date of the communication of such ruling or order.

The advance ruling pronounced by the Authority under Section 28 – I shall remain valid for five years or till there is a change in law or facts on the basis of which the advance ruling has been pronounced, whichever is earlier.

Where the Authority finds that the advance ruling was obtained by the applicant by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, the same shall be declared void ab initing.

Order

M/s All, Dixon Technologies Private Limited (IEC No. AAPCA1267K) (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) filed an application (Form CAAR-I) for advance ruling before the Office of the Secretary, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai. The application was received in the Secretariat of CAAR, Mumbai on 26.12.2025 along with the requisite enclosures in terms of Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The applicant has sought an advance ruling on the import of a 5G Communication Module.

2. A personal hearing was granted on 24.02.2026 & 13.03.2026. On going through the case records, it is observed that the address furnished by the applicant in the application is A­12, Khemka Square, Sector-4, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh — 201301. It is to underline that as per Paragraph 6(2) of the CAAR Regulations, 2021, jurisdiction is to be determined based on the address provided by the applicant in the application. The same is reproduced as under:

(2) The jurisdiction shall be determined in terms of the address provided by the applicant while making the application, and the Authority for an applicant providing an address other than that of within the territory of India, shall be the Authority situated at Delhi.

3. Since the said address provided by the applicant does not fall within the jurisdiction of CAAR, Mumbai, and instead falls under the jurisdiction of CAAR, Delhi, the present application is not maintainable before CAAR, Mumbai. This office has informed the applicant that the correct jurisdiction comes under CAAR, Delhi. The applicant vide email dated 25.03.2026 has requested for transfer the application to CAAR, Delhi. In this regard, it is observed that there is no such provision in the CAAR regulations, 2021 to transfer the application from one Advance Ruling Authority to another authority. The same is also communicated to the applicant vide this office email dated 26.03.2026. In absence of such legal provisions, the request of the applicant cannot be considered. Accordingly, the request for transfer of the application of the applicant, is declined. Needless to say that the applicant is at liberty to approach the proper authority i.e. Advance Ruling Authority at Delhi, if desired.

4. In view of the forgoing facts on the record and in exercise of the powers vested in me vide Regulation 6(2) of the Customs Authority of Advance Rulings Regulation, 2021, I hereby refrain from passing the ruling in this case due to lack of jurisdiction.

5. The application is disposed of, accordingly.