Case Law Details
In re Multi Channel Inc (CAAR Mumbai)
It is clear from a plain reading of proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of section 28-1 of the Customs Act, 1962, that the question involved in the application is already pending in the applicant’s case before an officer of customs, the law does not allow CAAR to pronounce any advance ruling in such cases as requested. In view of the same CAAR reject the application for advance ruling filed by M/s. Multi Channel Inc.
FULL TEXT OF ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
Mrs. Multi Channel Inc., having registered office at 2C-112, 2nd Cross Road, East of NGEF, Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore – 560043 filed an application for advance ruling on 03.02.2022 in terms of section 28H (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before this authority, constituted under section 28-EA of the Act read with Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021 [issued vide CBIC Notification No. 01/2021-Customs (N.T.), dated 04.01.2021].
2. The applicant has submitted that they are presently engaged in the activity of import of aluminium based copper clad laminates. They had imported a consignment through ICD, Tughlakabad and declared the same as “Aluminium Based Copper Clad Laminates” (hereinafter referred as ‘goods’) under Bill of Entry No. 2376319, dated 16.01.2021 (hereinafter referred as ‘BOE’). That in the said BOE applicant classified the goods under Customs tariff entry 74102100 and paid basic customs duty (BCD) @5%, SWS@10% on BCD and IGST@18%. They received a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Audit) bearing F. No. VIII/PPG/Cus-Audit/Circle-2/PPG/Multi/14/2021/247, dated 16.07.2021 and Consultative Letter No. DL-CUS.ADT/186/Circle-1112021, dated 15.07.2021, whereby an objection has been raised that major material used in the imported goods is ‘Aluminium’ which is more than 70% and that the same appears to be wrongly classified by the applicant under sub-heading 74102100, and that, the same would be appropriately classifiable under sub-heading 76061200. The applicant has contended that the above-mentioned goods merit classification under sub-heading 74102100 and is seeking advance ruling as to whether the said goods are covered under sub-heading 74102100 or 76061200.
3. Since the applicant has stated that the jurisdictional authority for the said activity is the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, TKD, New Delhi, accordingly, comments from the Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner were invited. However, no comments have been received.
4. The personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 03.03.2022. Shri. Akhil Krishan Maggu, advocate and authorised representative, appeared on behalf of the applicant. However, none represented the jurisdictional customs authority. Shri. Akhil Krishan Maggu was asked about the present status of the audit objection. He stated that they had replied to the said audit objection, but have not heard anything further from the department. Since, a dispute involving classification of the subject goods has been raised and in the absence of a clarity on the said issue, the hearing was adjourned to ascertain the status of the audit objection.
5. In the meanwhile, efforts were made and it has been ascertained from the Commissioner of Customs, 1CD, PPG that the said audit objection has culminated in issuance of a show-cause notice F. No. VII/6/ICD/PPG/SCN/Multi Channel/151/2021, dated 05.10.2021. The Commissioner of Customs (Audit), New Delhi has also relayed the same status. As stated earlier in the Annexure-I to the application for advance ruling, the issue of classification is already pending before an officer of customs. In the proceedings before me, therefore, I am now faced with the situation where the act of import is purportedly complete and also that the import of the goods has been subjected to assessment wherein .an objection has been raised by the concerned authorities on the issue of classification and a show-cause notice has been issued. It is clear from a plain reading of proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of section 28-1 of the Act, that the question involved in the application before me is already pending in the applicant’s case before an officer of customs, the law does not allow me to pronounce any advance ruling as requested.
In light of the discussions in the preceding paragraph, without going into the merits of the application, I reject the application for advance ruling filed by M/s. Multi Channel Inc.
