2021 (4) TMI 1251 - AAR - Customs

Classification of goods - tunnel boring machine and its components - eligibility of the said goods for exemption from customs duty - advance ruling application - Secretary to the CAAR, Mumbai pointed out to the applicant that their original application has lapsed and that, if they are still desirous of obtaining an advance ruling, they need to apply afresh - HELD THAT - The request for advance ruling was filed in the secretariat of the erstwhile AAR, New Delhi on 14.10.2019. No pronouncements were made on the said application within three months as required under the provisions of sub-section 6 to section 28-I of the Act for the reason for non-constitution of the requisite bench. I find it difficult to agree with the assertion of the applicant that the limitation prescribed under law is a mere procedural requirement. It is a settled proposition of law that any interpretation of law which leads to a manifest absurdity has to be eschewed. Besides, being a creature of statute, I am squarely bound by the four corners of the statute, and therefore, considering the express mandate of the statute, I find no reason to depart from it. The application was transferred to the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai in February, 2021. It is settled law that assessment is a quasi-judicial proceeding requiring application of mind and speaking decisions. I am, therefore, not convinced with the argument that no independent proceeding is pending before any officer of customs, as argued by the applicant. The application for Advance Ruling rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of application for advance ruling to Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) Mumbai.
2. Lapsing of original application due to expiry of time limit for pronouncing advance ruling.
3. Request for adjournment of personal hearing due to elections.
4. Change in circumstances affecting the application for advance ruling.
5. Interpretation of time limit for pronouncing advance ruling.
6. Consideration of submissions regarding provisional assessment and pending issues.
7. Rejection of application for advance ruling.

Transfer of Application for Advance Ruling:
The application for advance ruling was transferred to the CAAR, Mumbai in February 2021, as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The Secretary to the CAAR, Mumbai noted that the time limit for pronouncing the advance ruling had expired before the transfer, prompting the applicant to be informed that their original application had lapsed. However, the application fee was waived, and the applicant affirmed the validity of their original declarations and requested to proceed with the application.

Lapsing of Original Application:
The Secretary to the CAAR, Mumbai pointed out that the original application had lapsed due to the expiry of the time limit for pronouncing the advance ruling. The applicant was given the option to apply afresh if they still desired an advance ruling. Despite the lapse, the application fee was waived, and the applicant confirmed the unchanged declarations in the original application.

Request for Adjournment and Change in Circumstances:
A request for adjournment of the personal hearing was made due to scheduled elections, leading to a rescheduled hearing. During the hearing, it was revealed that the circumstances had changed, affecting the application for advance ruling. The applicant had completed imports for specific projects and the benefit of nil rate of duty had been amended, raising questions about the continued validity of the application.

Interpretation of Time Limit for Pronouncing Advance Ruling:
The Authority considered the argument that the time limit for pronouncing an advance ruling is procedural, but emphasized that it is a statutory requirement. Referring to legal principles, the Authority rejected the notion that the limitation is merely procedural, highlighting the importance of statutory mandates and the consequences of non-adherence.

Consideration of Submissions and Rejection of Application:
After reviewing all materials and submissions, the Authority determined that the application for advance ruling should be rejected. The completion of import activities, provisional assessment, and changes in relevant regulations were key factors in this decision. The Authority emphasized the statutory limitations and the inability to issue an advance ruling post-importation, leading to the rejection of the application without delving into its merits.