CUSTOMSAUTHORITYFORADVANCERULINGS 001 l\ew Customs flouse, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 The 10th of June,2021 Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC I 1 412A21 In Application No. CAAR/Mum/ARC I L 4 17021 M/s. Apple India Private Limited, 191r Floor' Concordi-Tower C, UB City, No' 24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore, Karnataka Commissioner of Customs' Air Cargo Commissioner concerned 1. The (Import), New Customs House, Near I'G'I' Airport, New Delhi- 110037. 2. The Pr. Commissioner of Customs' Air Cargo Complex & Airport, Air India SATS Air Freight Station Terminal, Devanahalli, Bengaluru - 560300 3. The Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Chenlai I (Airport), New Custom House, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chenaai - 60A021. 4. The Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Chenuai VII (Air Cargo Commissionerate), New Custom House, Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600016. 5. The Pr. Commissioner of Customs (III), (Impod), Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400099. 6. The Principal Commissioner of Custorns, (Airport &. Administration), 15/1 Strand Road, Custom House, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700001 Present for the application Sri Kanchun Kaushal, CA; Sh. Ravi Sharma, Advocate; Sh. Manmohan Mundhra; Ms. Shruti Khimta; Ms. Shubhangi Arora; Present for the Depafiment Sh. M. K. Sarargi, Additional Commissioner, ACC, Sahar, Andheri (East), Mumbai; Sh. Balakrishnan, Addditional; Commissioner, ACC&A, AIMST, Dsvanahalli, Bongaluru; Sh. John Elango, Joint Commissioner, ACC, Meenambakkam, Chennai ; Page 1 of 8 .; Sh. Venkatesh Jadhav, Deputy Commissioner, ACC, Sahar, Andheri (East), Mumbai; Rulins an advance ruling on IVIls. Apple tndia pr,t. Ltd. vide their application dated 22.12.2017 sought ,Whether Customs Tariff Heading the question, the import of Apple HomePod will be classified under AtrthoriS for (CTFD 8517.62.9A? The application was received in the secretariat of the erstwhile applicatiorr was admitted Advance Rulings, Central Excise, Customs & Service Taxo*26'12'\Afi 'The given. Thereafter, on on 25.05.2018 and was heard on 29.06.2018. However, no ruling has been provisions of section appoinhnent of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai under the the said application 2gEA of the Customs Act,196T;the secretariat of the erstwhile AAR transferred to the CAAR, Mumbai' it 2. On scrutiny by the Secretary to the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai, 3 as mandated under appeared tliat the application has lapsed since no ruling was given within months law and purely as a sub-section 6 of section 2g-l of the Act. However, on constructive interpretation of the application if they trade facilitation measure, the applicant was given an opportunity to re-submit the continued to be desirous of obtaining an advance ruling as sought originally. Accordingly, application has been submitted on 01.04-2021 ' 3. I1 their original application, the applicant indicated that they wish to import HomePods through in their the airports lair cargo complexes of New Delhi, chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, and Kolkata. fresh application dated 01.04.2021also, the applicant has expressed the same inteation. The applicant has also quoted decisions of the erstwhile AAR in the cases of BMW lndia Pvt. Ltd., Agilent Technologies India P!1. Ltd., and Xerox India Ltd. in support of their application. 4. In respect of the application for advance ruling filed originally, the Chennai Air Cargo Commissionerate was of the view that Apple HomePods merit classification under sub-heading 85182900 of the tariff. However, the Commissioner of Customs of Bangalore Airport and Air Cargo Complex was of the view that the product merits classification under sub-heading 85176290,concuring with the view of the applicant. The same view was also reiterated by the Delhi and Mumbai Air Cargo Commissioners. No comments were received from Kolkata Commissioner. The comments from the commissionerates were conveyed to the applicant and their rebuttal in respect of the comments from Chennai is also on record. Subsequently, the Commissioner, Chennai VII has reconsidered their earlier stand and concurred with the applicant's as well as views of the concerned Principal CommissionerslCommissioners of New Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore that Apple HomePods merit classification under sub-heading 87176290 of the tariff. After the filing of the application dated 01.04.2A21, all the aforementioned commissioners of customs were requested to cotnmunicate their comments or re-affirm their earlier position, as may be convetient. Replies have been received from New Delhi and Mumbai, reiterating the earlier position. Mumbai Air Cargo, in addition, as also enclosed a copy of the Bill of Entry No. 9504350, dated 03.01.2019 vide which HomePod Model A16 has been imported by classifying the same under sub-heading 87176290 of the customs tariff. 5. The application was listed for admission on 19.05.202\. Ort the issue of whether an advance ruling can be given in respect of goods ilready imported, Sri Kanchun Kaushal, appearing on behalf of the applicant, argued that they had filed the application in 2017 and its mere transfer to the present authority doesn't make it a new application. The learned counsel emphasised the provisions of sub- section 2 afi 3 of section 28F in support of their line of reasoning. Additional time of one week has Page 2 of W &e made fuither submissions also been sought for submission of additional written brief. The applicant has has quoted the vide their communication dated Zl.{J5.2021.In the said submissions, the applicant application was relevant portions of the law as it pertained to advance rulings in customs when their filed forthe first time in December,2017 as well as the 1aw as it stands now. Tlre applicant has reiterated receive an advance that they qualifii as an applicant as per the provisions oflaw and also have a right to ruling. The main tlyust of the arguments of the applicant is that their application filed afresh on date of filing on 26 01 .04.2021 cannot be treated as a fresh application and that their original '12'2417 present authority, the would stand and since the original application has sirnply been transferred to the The applicant also present proceedings would be deemed to be a continuation of the past proceedings- had resorted urgo", that silce they had filed an application for advance ruling and only thereafter, they to import, their right to receive an advance ruling wouldn't be adversely affected. The decision of (28a) 121 is Hon,ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mls. Hyosung Corporation reported at2016 CTR (3) cited in support of this contention. During the oral arguments, the provisions of sub-section of legitimate section 2gF of the Act was emphasized again. The applicant has also cited the doctrine of that expectation in sgpport of their argument to receive an advance ruling. The applicant also states promissory since their original application stood admitted by the erstwhile authority, the doctrine of case laws estoppel would require a continuation of proceedings rather than a fresh proceeding. Several have been cited in support ofthis contention. 6. I have gone through the case records, and written as well as oral submissions. An application for advance ruling was filed before the erstwhile AAR on 26.12.2017. At the relevant time, the time limit prescribed in the statute was ninety days. This time period was amended to three months w.e'f' 29.$.2A1g by virtue of the section 68 of the Finance Act. 2018. Now, the question that arises is that if an advance ruling is not rendered within the time limit prescribed in the statute, what would be the re- result? One possible answer to that is that the application lapses, and therefore, would require to be submitted or revalidated. The other possibitity, the one favoured by the applicant, is that the application rvould continue to exist until an advance ruling is rendered. The scheme of advance rulings in customs was introduced by virtue of section 103 of the Finance Act, 1999.It is contained in the chapter VB of the Customs Act, 1962. Major amendmentsideletions/substitutions were carried out to the scheme of advance rulings in the Finance Acts of 2017 and 2018. Prior to such changes, advance rulings were given by the AAR which comprised of a chairperson, who was to be a retired judge of the Supreme Court, an officer of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service who is qualified to be a Member of the Board, and an officer of the Indian Legal Service who is, or is qualifled to be, an Additional Secretary to the Government of India. However, by virfue of section 28EA, inserted in the Act w.e.f. 28.03.20i8, provision was made for appointment of an officer of the rank of Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as the CAAR to render advance rulings and at the same time the erstwhile AAR was converted into an appellate body. However, during the transition period, the proviso to section 28EA(1) made provision for filing of advance ruling applications with the erstwhile AAR, while making provision of transfer of pending cases to the newly created CAARs under sub- sections (2) and (3) of the section 28F of the Act. In this case the applicant filed an application for advancerulings on26.l2.20lTundertheprovisotothesub-section(1)ofsection28EAoftheAct'This application has, however, not been disposed of by the erstwhile authority. Thereafter, on the appointment of CAAR, Mumbai and notification of the relevant regulations w.e.f.04.01.2021, this application has been transferred to CAAR, Mumbai under the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 28F. The said provision states that, 'On and from the date of appointment of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, every application and proceeding pending before the erstwhile Authority for Advanoo Rulings shall stand transfemed to the Authority from the stage at which such application or proceeding stood as on the date of such appointment.' In the advance ruling no.