Advance ruling jurisdiction turns on the applicant's own office address, not a logistics provider's premises, under customs regulations.

An advance ruling application under section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962 was held not maintainable before the Mumbai Authority because jurisdiction depended on the applicant's own office address, not the premises of a logistics service provider used under a clearing and forwarding arrangement. The applicant's registered address and IEC address were in Gurugram, Haryana, placing the matter within the Delhi advance ruling authority under regulation 6 of the Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021. The service-provider agreement did not make the Mumbai premises the applicant's office address, so rejection for want of jurisdiction was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application was maintainable before the Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai, or was liable to be rejected for want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The application was filed under section 28-H of the Customs Act, 1962. The address relied upon to attract Mumbai jurisdiction was the premises of the logistics service provider under a clearing and forwarding arrangement, not the applicant's own office address. The applicant's registered address and IEC address were at Gurugram, Haryana, which fell within the jurisdiction of the Delhi advance ruling authority under regulation 6 of the Customs Advance Ruling Regulations, 2021. The agreement with the service provider did not establish that the Mumbai premises constituted the applicant's office address.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable before the Mumbai authority and was rightly rejected for lack of jurisdiction.

---