Customs advance ruling limits, MOOWR procedures, EPCG cross-utilisation, and third-party exports clarified for export manufacturing.

Advance ruling jurisdiction under the Customs Act is limited to the statutory subjects specified in section 28H(2), so duty drawback questions relating to MOOWR units fall outside that scope because drawback is a separate rebate/refund mechanism and no ruling can be given. Advance Authorisation goods may be brought into a MOOWR warehouse for manufacture of export goods only under the prescribed procedure, including filing a bill of entry for home consumption, after which they are not treated as warehoused goods. EPCG relief cannot be used to debond capital goods that have already availed MOOWR deferment unless the scheme expressly permits such cross-utilisation. Supplies to a third-party exporter are treated as exports where the goods are exported outside India.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether questions relating to duty drawback in respect of goods manufactured in a MOOWR unit fall within the advance ruling jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether goods imported under Advance Authorisation can be brought into the MOOWR unit for manufacture of export goods; (iii) whether capital goods already availing deferment under the MOOWR scheme can be debonded by utilising EPCG authorisation; and (iv) whether supply to a third-party exporter amounts to export where the goods are exported outside India.

Issue (i): Whether questions relating to duty drawback in respect of goods manufactured in a MOOWR unit fall within the advance ruling jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The questions on drawback were examined against the scope of Section 28H(2). Duty drawback was treated as a rebate or refund mechanism and not as a levy or exemption issue under the provisions conferring advance ruling jurisdiction. The relevant clause was read as covering notifications concerning tax or duty leviable or chargeable, while drawback was viewed as a distinct subject governed by separate statutory provisions. On that basis, the authority held that the drawback questions did not fit within the permitted subject-matter for advance ruling.

Conclusion: The drawback-related questions were held to be outside the advance ruling jurisdiction, and no ruling was given on them.

Issue (ii): Whether goods imported under Advance Authorisation can be brought into the MOOWR unit for manufacture of export goods.

Analysis: The authority relied on the customs clarification that exempt or nil-rated imported goods may be brought into a warehouse operating under section 65, but only upon filing a bill of entry for home consumption. It was emphasized that such goods would not thereafter be treated as warehoused goods. The Advance Authorisation benefit was therefore held available only within that procedural framework and subject to compliance with the notification and the Foreign Trade Policy.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative, subject to the stated conditions and filing of a bill of entry for home consumption.

Issue (iii): Whether capital goods already availing deferment under the MOOWR scheme can be debonded by utilising EPCG authorisation.

Analysis: The authority examined the relevant customs notifications, the Foreign Trade Policy, and the CBIC clarification on export benefits in bonded warehouses. It held that the cited notifications did not expressly extend EPCG-based duty relief to capital goods on which MOOWR deferment had already been claimed. In the absence of an express enabling provision, the exemption could not be invoked by inference, and the scheme benefit could not be cross-utilised in the manner proposed.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the negative; EPCG authorisation could not be used to debond capital goods on which MOOWR deferment had already been availed.

Issue (iv): Whether supply to a third-party exporter amounts to export where the goods are exported outside India.

Analysis: The authority referred to the Foreign Trade Policy provisions governing third-party exports and the customs definition of export. It held that where the documentation reflects the manufacturing exporter and the third-party exporter, and the goods move directly to the port for export outside India, the transaction qualifies as a third-party export rather than a domestic tariff area sale.

Conclusion: The supply was held to be export in such circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The ruling declined jurisdiction over drawback-related questions, allowed Advance Authorisation imports into the MOOWR unit only on the prescribed customs procedure, disallowed EPCG-based debonding of MOOWR capital goods already enjoying deferment, and recognised third-party exports as exports where the goods are exported outside India.

Ratio Decidendi: Advance ruling jurisdiction under the Customs Act extends only to the specified statutory subjects, and exemption benefits cannot be extended by inference where the governing notification or scheme does not expressly permit cross-utilisation.

---