Advance ruling barred where classification issue was already decided by court, and re-adjudication was not permitted.

An advance ruling application was held barred where the question raised had already been decided by a court, as section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 prevents the Authority from entertaining issues already pending or finally determined. Prior judicial determination on the classification of roasted areca nut was treated as binding, and judicial discipline required the Authority to follow that precedent rather than re-adjudicate the same issue. The Authority also held that the application could not be partly entertained for classification or related questions once the bar applied. The application was therefore rejected in toto and no advance ruling was issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advance ruling application was barred under section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 because the question raised had already been decided by a Court, and whether the Authority could nevertheless pronounce a ruling on the classification and related questions.

Analysis: The application was examined in the light of the statutory bar on entertaining questions already pending or already decided by a Court or Tribunal. The prior judicial determination on the classification of roasted areca nut was treated as binding on the Authority, and the principle of judicial discipline required adherence to that precedent. The Authority further noted that the application could not be partially entertained and that the advance ruling mechanism did not permit re-adjudication of an issue already conclusively settled by a competent court.

Conclusion: The application was barred by section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and was rejected in toto; no advance ruling was issued.

---