Advance ruling review is limited to fraud or misrepresentation, not correction of alleged classification errors on merits.

Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962 permits an advance ruling to be declared void ab initio only where, on a Commissioner's representation, it is shown to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. It does not provide a mechanism to correct alleged errors, revisit the merits of classification, or seek re-examination because the ruling is said to have overlooked a factor such as roasting. On the materials considered, the claimed non-emphasis on roasting did not establish misrepresentation, and the request for re-examination was therefore not maintainable under Section 28K read with Regulation 26.

---

---

Issues: Whether a representation seeking re-examination of an advance ruling could be entertained under Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 26 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021 on the ground that the ruling allegedly overlooked the significance of roasting and thereby involved error in classification.

Analysis: Section 28K empowers the Authority to declare an advance ruling void ab initio only where it is found, on a representation by the concerned Commissioner, that the ruling was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The scope of this provision does not extend to correction of alleged errors in the ruling or to a review of the merits of the classification decided earlier. On the materials placed, the alleged non-emphasis on roasting did not establish that the ruling had been procured by misrepresentation, and the earlier ruling was not shown to have depended on the roasting process in the manner asserted in the representation.

Conclusion: The representation was not maintainable under Section 28K and Regulation 26 and was declined to be admitted.

Final Conclusion: The advance ruling remained undisturbed, and the request for re-examination was not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 28K can be invoked only for fraud or misrepresentation of facts and not for correction or reconsideration of an advance ruling on merits.

---