Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AAR Customs - 2022 (8) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1394 - AAR - CustomsAppropriate Authority for investigation of issue - DRI, New Delhi - Classification of goods imported - actuator, aerosol valve, pumps etc. - mis-representation of facts - HELD THAT:- Section 28K mentions two circumstances for declaring the advance ruling void, namely fraud or misrepresentation of facts, as distinct from three circumstances for invocation of extended period under Section 28(4) of collusion; or any wilful misstatement; or suppression of facts. Merriam Webster dictionary defines fraud to mean deceit or trickery, more specifically intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right. Clearly, the alleged act of omission of not elaborating on the details of DRI, New Delhi investigation by the applicant even if it were to be accepted would not be covered under the meaning of fraud. In the same vein, there are no misrepresentation of fact by the applicant, noting further that this authority had also ascertained from DRI Jaipur whether any SCN had been issued and they had replied in the negative. Noting the indisputable facts that the previous clearances had been allowed finally, i.e. without recourse to provisional assessment by the jurisdictional customs officers and no pre-consultation notice or show cause notice had been issued by any of the competent authority, this Authority would not have invoked the proviso (a) to Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In a recent ruling in the application of M/s. HQ Lamps Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., this Authority has opined that an application may be considered “pending” before any officer only if it is pending before an officer in formal manner before an officer who is competent to answer the said question in terms of specific powers vested with the officer under the Customs Act. Having carefully considered the representation of DRI, it is not found that they have proffered any evidence of fraud or misrepresentation of facts by the applicant, which may have coloured my ruling even remotely. Having completed the examination of the representation filed by DRI, New Delhi under Section 28K of the Customs Act, 1962, the said representation is rejected.
|