2022 (1) TMI 519 - AAR - Customs

ELG India's Duty Rate Application Rejected as Infructuous Due to Amendments

The application by M/s. ELG India Pvt. Ltd. seeking a concessional duty rate for importing stainless-steel scrap was rejected as infructuous. The ... Benefit of concessional rate of duty - import of stainless-steel scarp - Entry No. 333 of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012, as amended vide Notification No. 25/2013-Cus., dated 8-5-2013 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the tariff shows that Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2021, as amended was superseded vide Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., dated 30-6-2017. Therefore, the applicant’s initial contention that there has been no factual change in respect of the application since its original filing doesn’t appear to be correct - the said notification has been amended several times since and the amendments carried out vide Notification No. 2/2021-Cus., dated 1-2-2021 are significant in the context of the present advance ruling application. The effect of the amendments carried out w.e.f. 1-2-2021 is that the benefit of ‘NIL’ rate of duty available to all goods falling under Heading 7204 of the tariff would cease w.e.f. 1-4-2022, and w.e.f. the said date all goods of Heading 7204 would attract basic customs duty @ 2.5%. In view of such a position, the application for advance ruling has become infructuous. Advance rulings can be sought only in respect of the issues permitted under Section 28H of the Act and such ruling would remain in force, as per the provisions of Section 28J(2) of the Act, only till the law or facts remain unchanged. Therefore, advance rulings can only be sought only w.r.t. law or facts that exists at the relevant time and not w.r.t. some hypothetical proposition. In this case, the law/facts existing at the time of original application are no longer existing and therefore, the request for an advance ruling on the basis of such non-existent law/facts merit rejection. The application filed by M/s. ELG India Pvt. Ltd. is rejected as infructuous. Issues:1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Entry No. 333 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. for stainless-steel scrap import.Analysis:1. The application for advance ruling was filed in 2013 to determine the availability of concessional duty rate for stainless-steel scrap import. The process involved multiple hearings, submissions, and transfers between authorities. The statutory period for issuing a ruling lapsed, prompting a transfer to the Customs Authority of Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai in 2021.2. The CAAR, Mumbai requested the applicant to reapply due to the lapsed statutory period. The applicant confirmed their interest in pursuing the ruling, paid the revised fee, and specified the port of import as Jawaharlal Nehru Port. However, no response was received from the Customs authorities at Nhava Sheva-III.3. During a virtual hearing in 2021, it was noted that the exemption notification sought by the applicant had been superseded, making the original application seemingly irrelevant. The applicant acknowledged changes in the notification but still sought a ruling based on a subsequent amendment allowing duty-free import until March 31, 2022.4. The applicant intended to import various grades of metal scrap for processing into blended metal scrap. The specific issue was whether the import of stainless-steel scrap qualified for the concessional duty rate under the relevant notifications. However, subsequent amendments to the notifications rendered the application obsolete.5. The presiding officer found that the amendments made the application infructuous as the duty rate changed from nil to 2.5% for all goods under Heading 7204 from April 1, 2022. The officer emphasized that advance rulings are based on existing laws and facts, not hypothetical scenarios, and rejected the applicant's request for a ruling based on outdated provisions.6. Consequently, the application by M/s. ELG India Pvt. Ltd. was rejected as infructuous, given the changes in duty rates and the inapplicability of the original request due to subsequent amendments to the relevant notifications.