Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the advance ruling was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of material facts so as to justify declaration of the ruling as void ab initio under section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The Authority found that the investigation, statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Chartered Engineer's report, and the documentary material showed that the imported items were complete and independently identifiable parts of mobile phones, while the covers had already acquired their essential character on moulding and machining. The Authority held that the applicant had projected complete functional parts as mere inputs for manufacture of covers, and that this was not a mere difference of opinion on classification. It further held that section 28K operates where the ruling itself was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts, and that the availability of the appellate remedy under section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962 did not exclude action under section 28K.
Conclusion: The advance ruling was obtained by misrepresentation of material facts and was liable to be declared void ab initio under section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962.