2023 (6) TMI 596 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

Scope of Advance Ruling - Matter is already pending / under dispute - Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Data Projector ZH 350, ZW350e, ZX 350e - applicability of Sr. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Customs, dated 01.03.2005, as amended.

Discrepancy in Contrast ratio of subject goods as displayed on the website, against the contrast ratio submitted in their CAAR 1 application - HELD THAT:- Applicant has not given a satisfactory explanation on why there is a difference in contrast ratio mentioned in application vis a vis one mentioned by the manufacture in the public domain. Instead applicant has tried to intermix contrast ratio and dynamic ratio. The applicant’s explanation for query mentioned cannot be agreed upon.

Why the models covered under present CAAR 1 applications are different from those covered under ongoing dispute with Nhava Sheva-V Commissionerate? - HELD THAT:- It is seen that few of the impugned projectors covered in the Order in original No. 142/2022-23/ADC/Gr.VA/CAC/JNCH dated 23.05.2022, are listed under the Business/Education category of projectors on the said website. Also the technical features of the impugned products are similar to those of the subject goods, for which ruling has been sought. Thus though the model numbers of the impugned projectors are different from the model numbers for which ruling has been sought, the technical features of the projectors are not altogether different. I find that the principal or primary function of the impugned goods is not distinctly dissimilar from the functionality of the subject goods. Further despite been given an opportunity to present their case in the hearing and allowing additional submissions via rejoinder, the applicant has refrained from clarifying "Why the models covered under present CAAR 1 applications are different from those covered under ongoing dispute with Nhava Sheva-V Commissionerate? ".

Thus, Data Projector (Model - ZH 350, ZW350e, ZX 350e) cannot be treated as an altogether different product compared to those covered in the 0-1-0 no. 142/2022-23/ADC/Gr. VA/CAC/JNCH dated 23.5.2022. Hence as declared at Sr. No. 11 of the CAAR-1 application, the matter of classification of similar devices is pending decision in the applicant’s own case before an officer of custom i.e. Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner (Appeal) - in view of provisions of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962, ruling in this case is not passed.