2023 (6) TMI 655 - AAR - Customs

Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - application filed before proper jurisdictional Advance Ruling Authority or not - Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Supro Nuggets 570 G IP - classifiable under Tariff Item 35040091 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not - what is the appropriate classification of Supro Nuggets 570 G IP soy protein nuggets under the Tariff? - HELD THAT - The copy of agreement entered in to in year 2020 was valid for only one year i.e. up to 31 July 2021. But more importantly, it is observed from its contents that M/s JWL Cold Storage Private Limited has basically agreed to provide services of warehousing, inventory accounting, goods' security, organizing and reporting inward and outward movement of the goods and secretarial assistance as a part of logistics support services stipulated in the para 3 of the said agreement to the applicant. On scrutiny of the subject agreement it is also observed that said agreement contains various other responsibilities/assignments for JWL regarding safekeeping /title /sanitisation /taxes /safety and health/insurance/inspection etc. On scrutiny of the application and annexure/submission thereto submitted by the applicant, it is evident and although the address provided by the applicant i.e. 15-45, National Highway 4B, Panvel- JNPT Highway, Village-Padeghar, District Raigad, Taluka Panvel, Maharashtra-410206 falls under the jurisdiction of CAAR, Mumbai but from the agreement referred, it can't be construed as the office address of the applicant. However, an address i.e. 6th Floor, Tower C, DLF Cyber Greens, Sector- 25a, DLF City Phase III, Gurgaon, Gurugram, Haryana, 122002 provided in the said application falls under the jurisdiction of the CAAR, Delhi, in terms of regulation 6 of the CAAR Regulations, 2021 - Attempt of the applicant to falsely project their logistics service provider's address as their office address and the same as falling under the jurisdiction of CAAR, Mumbai requires rejection of application on the grounds of jurisdiction alone as per provisions of Regulation 6 of Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021 read with provisions of Section 28 H of the Customs Act, 1962. CCAR-1 application of the applicant M/s Solae Company India Private Limited is hereby rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction with an observation that the applicant has to file the application for seeking advance ruling under section 28- H of the Customs Act 1962 before proper jurisdictional Advance Ruling Authority i.e. CAAR Delhi. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of imported product under Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Jurisdictional issue regarding the applicant's address

Classification Issue:
The applicant sought an advance ruling on the classification of Supro Nuggets 570 G IP under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. During the personal hearing, queries were raised regarding the nature of the goods and the veracity of the applicant's address. The applicant clarified that the term "Nuggets" in the product name refers to the shape of the product and not its composition. They provided explanations supported by the product brochure and international dictionary definitions. The applicant also addressed the jurisdictional query by confirming their presence in Mumbai since 2020 with relevant documents.

Jurisdictional Issue:
Upon examining the agreement between the applicant and a logistics service provider, it was found that the agreement did not establish the logistics provider's premises as the office address of the applicant. The address provided by the applicant in Mumbai could not be construed as their office address. The applicant's attempt to use the logistics service provider's address as their own for jurisdictional purposes was deemed misleading. The rejection of the application was based on the lack of jurisdiction as per Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021 and the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant was advised to file the application with the proper jurisdictional Advance Ruling Authority in Delhi. Additionally, it was noted that the applicant did not submit a withdrawal application despite the option provided by the amended section 28 H (4) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
The application of the applicant, M/s Solae Company India Private Limited, was rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction. The applicant was directed to file the advance ruling application with the proper jurisdictional Advance Ruling Authority in Delhi. The rejection was based on the attempt to falsely project the logistics service provider's address as their own for jurisdictional purposes.