2023 (6) TMI 596 - AAR - Customs

Scope of Advance Ruling - Matter is already pending / under dispute - Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Data Projector ZH 350, ZW350e, ZX 350e - applicability of Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 01.03.2005, as amended. Discrepancy in Contrast ratio of subject goods as displayed on the website, against the contrast ratio submitted in their CAAR 1 application - HELD THAT - Applicant has not given a satisfactory explanation on why there is a difference in contrast ratio mentioned in application vis a vis one mentioned by the manufacture in the public domain. Instead applicant has tried to intermix contrast ratio and dynamic ratio. The applicant s explanation for query mentioned cannot be agreed upon. Why the models covered under present CAAR 1 applications are different from those covered under ongoing dispute with Nhava Sheva-V Commissionerate? - HELD THAT - It is seen that few of the impugned projectors covered in the Order in original No. 142/2022-23/ADC/Gr.VA/CAC/JNCH dated 23.05.2022, are listed under the Business/Education category of projectors on the said website. Also the technical features of the impugned products are similar to those of the subject goods, for which ruling has been sought. Thus though the model numbers of the impugned projectors are different from the model numbers for which ruling has been sought, the technical features of the projectors are not altogether different. I find that the principal or primary function of the impugned goods is not distinctly dissimilar from the functionality of the subject goods. Further despite been given an opportunity to present their case in the hearing and allowing additional submissions via rejoinder, the applicant has refrained from clarifying Why the models covered under present CAAR 1 applications are different from those covered under ongoing dispute with Nhava Sheva-V Commissionerate? . Thus, Data Projector (Model - ZH 350, ZW350e, ZX 350e) cannot be treated as an altogether different product compared to those covered in the 0-1-0 no. 142/2022-23/ADC/Gr. VA/CAC/JNCH dated 23.5.2022. Hence as declared at Sr. No. 11 of the CAAR-1 application, the matter of classification of similar devices is pending decision in the applicant s own case before an officer of custom i.e. Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner (Appeal) - in view of provisions of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962, ruling in this case is not passed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of 'Data Projector' (Model - ZH 350, ZW350e, ZX 350e).
2. Applicability of Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 01.03.2005.
3. Pending litigation concerning similar models.

Summary:

Classification of 'Data Projector':
The applicant, M/s. Rashi Peripheral Limited, sought an advance ruling on the classification of 'Data Projector' models ZH 350, ZW350e, and ZX 350e, proposed to be imported from China. The applicant argued that the subject goods are principally meant for use with an Automatic Data Processing System (APDS) and proposed classification under CTH 85286200. They compared the subject goods with home theatre projectors, emphasizing significant variations in features such as resolution, contrast ratio, and aspect ratio.

Applicability of Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs:
The applicant claimed eligibility for a nil rate of duty on the impugned goods as per Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 01.03.2005, as amended. They provided additional submissions to clarify discrepancies raised during the hearing, particularly regarding contrast ratios, and argued that the products in question are indeed data projectors.

Pending Litigation:
The applicant disclosed that a similar question is pending in respect of different models of projectors imported by them, with an appeal pending before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Nhava Sheva. The Authority noted that the principal function and technical features of the impugned goods are not distinctly dissimilar from those under ongoing dispute.

Conclusion:
The Authority refrained from passing a ruling due to the pending litigation on similar devices in the applicant's own case, citing Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962. The application was thus not allowed, and no advance ruling was issued.