TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Import of Components Not Classified as Motor Vehicles or CKD Kits</h1> <h3>M/s BMW India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Port- Import), Custom House</h3> M/s BMW India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Customs (Port- Import), Custom House - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 537 (A. A. R.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported components/parts/sub-assemblies by the applicant.2. Applicability of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.3. Classification under respective headings/sub-headings or under Tariff Heading 87.08 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.4. Jurisdiction and relevance of previous adjudications and investigations.5. Revenue's contention on the localization model and its implications.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Components/Parts/Sub-assemblies by the Applicant:The applicant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of a foreign company, proposed a new activity of importing components/parts/sub-assemblies while localizing six essential components/parts/sub-assemblies for manufacturing motor vehicles in India. The applicant sought an advance ruling on whether these imports would be classified as motor vehicles under Tariff Heading 87.03 or as Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kits under Sr. No. 437 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.3.2012, as amended, given the localization of six critical components/parts/sub-assemblies.The ruling concluded that the import of components/parts/sub-assemblies by the applicant would not be classified as motor vehicles under Tariff Heading 87.03 or as CKD kits under Sr. No. 437 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.3.2012, because the six essential and critical components/parts/sub-assemblies (engine, axle assembly, exhaust systems, cooling module, HVAC unit, and door panels) are to be locally assembled/manufactured by approved local third-party vendors.2. Applicability of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:The applicant argued that Rule 2(a) would not apply as the imported goods would not exhibit the essential characteristics of a finished motor vehicle. Rule 2(a) states that incomplete or unfinished articles presented for customs clearance must exhibit the essential characteristics of the finished article to be classified as such.The ruling supported the applicant's position, stating that the proposed imports would not contain the six essential and critical components/parts/sub-assemblies, and thus, would not exhibit the essential character of a motor vehicle. Therefore, Rule 2(a) would not be invoked for classification purposes.3. Classification under Respective Headings/Sub-headings or under Tariff Heading 87.08 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:The applicant proposed that if the imports were not classified as motor vehicles or CKD kits, they should be classified under their respective headings/sub-headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, rather than under Tariff Heading 87.08.The ruling agreed with the applicant, stating that the import of components/parts/sub-assemblies would be classified under their respective headings/sub-headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as they do not fall under Tariff Heading 87.03 for motor vehicles.4. Jurisdiction and Relevance of Previous Adjudications and Investigations:Revenue argued that the new localization model of import had already commenced, and hence, the Authority for Advance Rulings had no jurisdiction. However, the ruling clarified that the application was filed before the commencement of the new activity, and subsequent imports did not preclude the Authority from giving its ruling.Revenue also mentioned a previous adjudication against the applicant regarding the import of CKD kits with pre-assembled engines and transmissions. The ruling noted that the previous adjudication was not directly related to the current issue of classification and was more about the interpretation of a notification.5. Revenue's Contention on the Localization Model and Its Implications:Revenue contended that the localization model did not translate into domestic manufacturing and that local third-party vendors were mere extensions of the applicant. The ruling rejected these contentions, stating that the local third-party vendors were independent suppliers, and the applicant had provided evidence of domestic manufacturing.The ruling emphasized that the absence of six essential components/parts/sub-assemblies from the proposed imports meant that the imports would not have the essential character of a motor vehicle. Thus, the proposed imports would be classified as parts of motor vehicles and not as motor vehicles themselves.Conclusion:The ruling concluded that the import of components/parts/sub-assemblies by the applicant would not be classified as motor vehicles under Tariff Heading 87.03 or as CKD kits under Sr. No. 437 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.3.2012. Instead, these imports would be classified under their respective headings/sub-headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
TaxTMI 