Classification of goods — Decision of AAR and AAAR -- The petitioner sought an advance ruling that marine paints supplied by him should be considered as part of the ship/vessel and should be classified accordingly. Both, the AAR and AAAR have rejected the interpretation of the Petitioner. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted, that there is a fundamental error committed by both the Authorities in holding that the marine paint (anti-fouling paint) manufactured by the Petitioner is not a part of the ship. The court observed that the advance ruling pronounced by the Authority and the Appellate Authority shall be binding only on the Applicant who has sought it. Section 104 lays down that where the applicant obtains the advance ruling pronounced by the Authority or the Appellate Authority by fraud or suppression of material facts and misrepresentation of facts; the Authority may declare such rule to be void ab initio. Therefore, the legislative scheme indicates that the advance ruling is distinct from the appeal and revision. The order is binding only on those specified under section 103 of the Act. The court further observed that there is no error in the principle adopted by the Authorities that a part is one without which the whole cannot function and then applying that to the Petitioner's case. This is the only enquiry that both the Authorities had to undertake and they have rightly undertaken the same. There is no fundamental legal error in the approach going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Asahi India. The Appellate Authority has rightly distinguished all these decisions cited observing that under this regime prime test is whether the product is marketable or not. Thus, the view taken by the Authority and Appellate Authority is based on the material placed before it. The Petitioner sought to convert this limited enquiry in respect of Advance Ruling into an appellate enquiry, which is not permissible to be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Both the Authorities have dealt with the issue in extenso, have considered the submissions and the law cited and the same cannot be considered as suffering from fundamental error or absurd or perverse.

Held that— The High Court dismissed the writ petition.