2025 (7) TMI 731 - HC - Customs

Advance Ruling Authority order on Interactive Large Format Display goods classification upheld after dismissing writ petition

Commissioner of Customs, Import Chennai II, Chennai Versus M/s. Lenovo India Private Ltd.

The Madras HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an Advance Ruling Authority order regarding classification of Interactive Large Format Display goods. ... Maintainability of appeal as provided under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Classification of imported goods - Interactive Large Format Display – Model Thick Vision T86, T75, T65 (with camera) & T65 (without camera) - HELD THAT:- This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to the notice of this Court to the reply dated 23.06.2023 sent by the Additional Commissioner of Customs before the Advance Ruling Authority, wherein he has stated that the goods in question are not the same goods, which were the subject matter of consideration by the Tribunal and therefore, the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962 does not get attracted. Despite the said stand taken by the Additional Commissioner of Customs through his reply dated 23.06.2023 before the Advance Ruling Authority, the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition aggrieved by the order of the Advance Ruling Authority. Instead of filing the statutory appeal if aggrieved by the order of the Advance Ruling Authority, which has held that the goods in question are not the same goods, which were the subject matter of consideration by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition which is not maintainable. It is also to be noted that the impugned Advance Ruling order is valid only upto September 2026 in accordance with Section 28-J of the Customs Act, 1962. After giving due consideration to the aforementioned factors, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition does not deserve any merit - Petition dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED- Whether the Advance Ruling Authority was statutorily prohibited under the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962 from entertaining the respondent's application concerning classification of the imported goods, given that the question had already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.- Whether the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Advance Ruling Authority.- Whether the goods in question are the 'same goods' as those previously adjudicated by the Appellate Tribunal, thereby invoking the statutory prohibition under Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962, or whether they are merely similar goods, which would permit the Advance Ruling Authority to entertain the application.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Statutory prohibition on the Advance Ruling Authority under Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962The relevant legal framework is Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs the jurisdiction of the Advance Ruling Authority. The proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 28-I prohibits the Authority from entertaining applications where the question raised has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. The petitioner contended that since the goods were already considered by CESTAT, Bombay and Delhi, the Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the present application.The Court examined the submissions and the reply dated 23.06.2023 from the Additional Commissioner of Customs, which stated that the goods under consideration are not the 'same goods' previously adjudicated but only 'similar goods.' This distinction is crucial because the statutory prohibition applies strictly to 'same goods.' The Court accepted this interpretation, finding that the proviso to Section 28-I(2) does not bar the Authority from entertaining applications concerning similar but not identical goods.The Court's reasoning reflects a purposive interpretation of the statute, recognizing the need to allow fresh determinations where the facts or goods differ materially, even if they are closely related to previously adjudicated items. This approach prevents undue restriction on the Authority's jurisdiction and allows for proper classification in evolving commercial contexts.Issue 2: Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 in light of statutory appeal under Section 28-KASection 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962 provides a statutory appeal mechanism against orders passed by the Advance Ruling Authority. The respondent argued that the petitioner's challenge to the Advance Ruling order should have been pursued through this statutory appeal and not by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.The Court relied on binding precedent from a recent decision of a learned Single Judge of the same High Court, which held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction when a specific statutory appeal remedy exists. The Court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for the statutory appeal and that the petitioner's failure to avail the appeal remedy renders the writ petition not maintainable.The Court further noted the complexity involved in classification disputes under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, reinforcing that such matters are best resolved through the statutory appellate process rather than writ proceedings. This preserves the legislative intent to channel disputes through specialized forums equipped to handle technical and factual complexities.Issue 3: Classification of goods as 'same' or 'similar' for purposes of Section 28-IThe distinction between 'same' and 'similar' goods was central to the dispute. The petitioner asserted that the goods were already adjudicated, triggering the prohibition under Section 28-I. The respondent and the Customs Department's Additional Commissioner contended that the goods were not identical but only similar, thus permitting the Advance Ruling Authority to entertain the application.The Court accepted the departmental position, supported by the reply dated 23.06.2023, that the goods in question differ from those previously considered by the Tribunal. This factual finding was critical in allowing the Authority's jurisdiction to stand. The Court implicitly recognized that classification disputes often involve nuanced differences in product specifications, models, or features, which may justify separate rulings.This interpretation aligns with the legislative purpose to avoid unnecessary duplication of rulings on identical questions while allowing fresh consideration where differences exist. The Court thereby upheld the Authority's exercise of jurisdiction in this case.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Court held that 'the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962 does not get attracted when the goods in question are not the same goods which were the subject matter of consideration by the Tribunal.'- It was emphasized that 'the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be transformed into an appellate jurisdiction especially, when there exists an appellate remedy under the Statute under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962.'- The Court concluded that 'instead of exercising the statutory appeal provided under Section 28-KA of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable.'- The impugned Advance Ruling order is valid only up to September 2026 in accordance with Section 28-J of the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner's challenge to it must be pursued through the statutory appellate route.- The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability and failure to exhaust the statutory remedy, reinforcing the principle that specialized statutory forums and appeal mechanisms must be utilized for resolving classification disputes under customs law.