2022 (10) TMI 442 - AAR - Customs

Review of the ruling of AAR - erroneous ruling or obtained by fraud / misrepresentation of facts - Classification of goods - unflavoured supari - flavoured supari - API supari - Chikni supari - HELD THAT - On careful consideration of the documents submitted by the concerned Commissioner of Customs and having pronounced advance rulings on the same question of classification of betel nut items, albeit disagreeing with the rulings of the erstwhile AAR. I am not able to accord the crucial role ascribed to the process of roasting as has been claimed by the concerned Commissioner. The process of manufacture of four varieties of supari, involved inter alia boiling and/or drying/roasting, with the objective to minimize moisture content. On perusal of the said advance ruling, it is obvious to me that the ruling of the Hon ble AAR was not dependent on the involvement or otherwise of the process of roasting . Therefore, the contention of the concerned Commissioner of Customs in this regard, cannot be a ground for invocation of the provisions of Section 28K of the Customs Act read with Regulation 26 of CAAR Regulations, 2021. The said representation dated 19-2-2020 by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II against the Advance Ruling No. AAR/44/Cus/02/2017, dated 31-3-2017 pronounced by the erstwhile Hon ble AAR cannot be admitted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for re-examination of an advance ruling under Section 28K of the Customs Act.
2. Jurisdiction transfer to Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR).
3. Authority's power to declare an advance ruling void ab initio.
4. Allegation of misrepresentation of facts by the importer.
5. Interpretation of the classification of betel nut items under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 90 30.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a request for re-examination of an advance ruling under Section 28K of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, requested a re-examination of a previous ruling regarding the classification of betel nut items. The request was supported by an affidavit and relevant documents as per regulations.

2. The jurisdiction was transferred to the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) due to the amendments in the Customs Act. The new authority took up the representation for re-examination, recognizing itself as the successor entity to the erstwhile Authority for Advance Rulings.

3. The authority's power to declare an advance ruling void ab initio was discussed. Section 28K of the Customs Act allows the authority to declare a ruling void if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. Regulation 26 outlines the procedure for handling such representations.

4. The Commissioner alleged misrepresentation of facts by the importer regarding the process of roasting involved in the preparation of 'unflavoured' supari. However, the authority clarified that correcting errors is not within the scope of Section 28K. The authority found that the importer's argument did not warrant invoking the provisions of the Customs Act.

5. The interpretation of the classification of betel nut items under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 90 30 was crucial. The authority examined the process of manufacture of the supari items and concluded that the previous ruling was not dependent on the process of roasting. Therefore, the authority declined to admit the representation for re-examination based on the Commissioner's contentions.