Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AAR Customs - 2022 (2) TMI AAR This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1405 - AAR - CustomsClassification of goods - Echo family devices - to be classified under sub-heading 85176290 or not - Echo (4th Gen.), Model No. L4S3RE; Echo Dot (4th Gen.), Model No. B7W64E; Echo Dot (4th Gen.) with Clock, Model No. B7W644; and Echo Studio (Model No. 02T2V3) are appropriately classifiable under heading 8518 or not - HELD THAT:- The Echo family devices featuring 'Alexa' as discussed in the preceding paragraph 2 and the Apple HomePods featuring "Siri" described in paragraph 8 are indeed near identical devices. Obviously, in the matter of classification of these two kinds of devices of different manufacturers/marketers, a difference of opinion has arisen amongst the two advance rulings authorities. And, as informed by the ld. Counsel of the applicant, the matter has already reached the first statutory appellate level, i.e., the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Such being the undeniable facts, I feel it would be improper on my part to create further discordance on this issue which is already sub-judice. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the issue of classification of the 15 Echo family devices, except the device 'Wireless Speaker Device, Model No. P5B83L', which is not an Echo family device, need to await the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which is already seized of the matter in the form of the appeals of M/s. Amazon Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd. Reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of TITANOR COMPONENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2009 (4) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that if a similar appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, it would have been proper for the Tribunal to wait till the question of law is adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court in the appeals pending before it - The ratio of the above judgment was followed by the Larger bench of the CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of C. PINTO VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI [2018 (2) TMI 336 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Further, the Larger Bench of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of DINKAR KHINDRIA VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2000 (3) TMI 76 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has also held that Judicial propriety require that a co-ordinate bench should not sit over judgment on the order recorded by another bench. Accordingly, the secretariat is directed to keep track of the progress of the appeals of M/s. Amazon Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd. against the rulings of the CAAR, New Delhi and place these 10 applications for decision as soon as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decides the appeals of M/s. Amazon Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd. The ruling in respect of 'Wireless Speaker Device, Model No. P5B83L', shall, however, be rendered without awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as it is not an Echo family device.
|