9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure 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. - Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 28K of the Customs Act of M/s. Isha Exim, Mumbai . The said letter enclosed the representation supported by an affidavit (Notarised) and also accompanied with attested copies of relied upon documents as per Regulation 23 of Authority for Advance Rulings (CEST) Procedure Regulations, 2005. 4. In the meanwhile, consequent upon the amendments in Chapter-VB of the Customs Act relating to Advance Rulings and subsequent appointment of Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR, in short) in New Delhi and Mumbai with effect from 4-1-2021, the said letter was transferred to CAAR, New Delhi along with the pending applications in terms of Section 28F(3) ibid and Regulation 31 of CAAR Regulations, 2021. 5. This Authority, recognizin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appeared from the said test report that the process of roasting involved in the preparation of unflavoured supari as declared by the importer before the Advance Ruling Authority was not carried out on the imported goods. It is, therefore, alleged that the importer has misrepresented facts before the Authority. The representation goes on to argue that the Authority has erred in proposing to classify the subject goods under CTH 2106 90 30 by not emphasizing on the word preparation mentioned in Explanatory Note 2 to Chapter 21 of the HSN. 9. I must at the outset clarify that correction of error, as contended by the concerned Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, is not an objective covered by the scope of Section 28K of the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
