Case Law Details
In re Sarveshwari Industries (CAAR Mumbai)
Sarveshwari Industries applied to the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in Mumbai, seeking a ruling on the classification of “Scented Sweet Supari” under CTH 21069030. The application was filed under Section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962. However, it was brought to the CAAR’s attention during a personal hearing that a similar case involving M/s Bag Industries, which had resulted in a ruling by the same authority, was currently under review by the Delhi High Court. Furthermore, the High Court had issued a stay order on the operation of that ruling.
Given the pending litigation and the High Court’s stay order, the CAAR determined that issuing a fresh ruling on Sarveshwari Industries’ application would be inappropriate. Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, prohibits the authority from issuing rulings on matters already pending before a court. Adhering to judicial discipline, the CAAR decided to refrain from issuing a ruling in this instance. The applicant was informed that they could reapply to the authority once the Delhi High Court had reached a final decision on the M/s Bag Industries case, should they still desire a ruling. Consequently, the CAAR disposed of the application without issuing a ruling.
RELEVANT TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Sarvershwari Industries (having IEC No. AIMPA8017B), (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) filed an application in Form CAAR-1 on 24.09.2024 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) in the matter of the classification of Scented Sweet Supari under CTH 21069030.
2. In this regard, the relevant excerpts of subsection (2) of section 28-I 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 59[***] 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:”
3. It is pertinent to mention that a ruling passed by this authority in a similar matter in the case of M/s Bag Industries is pending before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and operation of the said ruling has been stayed by the order dated 23.09.2024.
4. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted through virtual mode on 24.03.2025 wherein the authorized representative of the applicant Shri Shubhendu Patnaik, Advocate, attended the personal hearing. The applicant/ representative of the applicant reiterated the submissions made by the applicant that the import goods i.e. “Scented Sweet Supari” merit classification under CTI 21069030 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the Personal Hearing it has been informed to the authorized representative of the applicant that the issue involved in the case is stayed by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of M/s Bag Industries. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of Section 281 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in observance of judicial discipline, the ruling cannot be issued at this point of time as the matter is sub judice before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
6. In view of the forgoing facts and records of the case, I am of the view that since the question raised in this very application on the similar/identical matter is pending before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the operation of the ruling passed by this authority has been stayed by the Order dated 23.09.2024, fresh ruling cannot be issued. Accordingly, considering the provisions of Section 28-I, sub-section (2) of Customs Act, 1962 and binding judicial discipline, I decide to refrain from passing any ruling in the instant case. However, the applicant will have liberty to approach this authority after the matter is finally decided by Hon’ble Court and the applicant so desire.
7. The application is not allowed and disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
