Advance ruling maintainability barred after import and provisional assessment, with statutory time limit treated as mandatory.

An advance ruling application was held not maintainable where the goods had already been imported and the relevant consignments were under provisional assessment. The statutory scheme requires a written ruling on questions raised before importation or exportation, and assessment is treated as including provisional assessment. Because the same questions were already pending before a Customs officer, the authority was barred from pronouncing an advance ruling. The argument that the three-month time limit for pronouncing the ruling was merely procedural was rejected as contrary to the express statutory mandate. The application was rejected without examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for advance ruling was maintainable after the goods had already been imported and the related assessment was pending provisionally, and whether the statutory time limit for pronouncing the ruling could be treated as merely procedural.

Analysis: The application was originally filed before the erstwhile authority, but no ruling was pronounced within the statutory period. By the time the matter came before the present authority, the imports had already been completed and the relevant consignments were under provisional assessment. The statutory definition of advance ruling requires a written decision on a question raised in respect of goods prior to their importation or exportation. The Act also treats assessment as including provisional assessment, and where the same questions are already pending before an officer of Customs, the authority is barred from pronouncing an advance ruling. The argument that the three-month period is only procedural was rejected as inconsistent with the express statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The application for advance ruling was not maintainable and was rejected without going into the merits.

---