CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS

NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001

E-MAIL: cus-advrulings.mum@gov.in

in

Application No CAAR/CUS/APPL/84 & 85/2023 - O/o Commr-CAAR-MUMBAI

Ruling

M/s. Nutricia International Private Limited (having IEC No. 0511096381) and hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant', in short) filed two applications (CAAR-1) lor advance riding before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumba: (CAAR in short). The said applications were received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 05.07.2023 along with enclosures in terms of Section 28H (1) of the Customs Act. 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' also). The applicant is seeking advance ruling for the proposed import of infant milkbased formula "Aptamit C Proteq" from Thailand under ASEAN-lndia Free Trade Agreement and under Third-Party invoicing [ Bill-to-Ship-to transaction model]. Questions of Law or fact on which advance ruling is required are as under:

a) Whether the Bill-to-Ship to model/third party invoicing model adopted by the Applicant is permitted under the AIFTA/Rules of Origin?

b) Whether the margin earned by the Danone Trading ELN B.V., Netherlands ("the Seller ') will be, included in the LOB price of the subject goods for the purposes of determining the regional-value-content?

c) Whether the imported subject goods fulfil the prescribed regional-value-content criteria? Whether benefit of exemption under AIFTA is available on import of "Aptamil C Proteq"?

d) Whether the activity carried out by Danone Thailand entity amounts to manufacture and hence falls out of de minimal value addition exclusion?

2. Applicant has submitted as follows:

2.1 The Applicant is inter alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling of infant and adult nutrition products under its various brands viz. "DEXOLAC", "PROTINEX", "FAREX", etc. The Applicant intends to procure ''Aptamil C Proteq"("subject goods") in to India from Danone Trading ELN B.V., established in Netherlands ("the seller"). The subject goods are a milk-based formula suitable for infants. They are preparations containing age-appropriate nutrients, to support overall growth and development of pre-term infants born out ofC-Section, when mother's milk is insufficient or unavailable. The subject goods are intended to be imported in packed condition, ready for retail sale in the 'as imported' condition. The applicant intends to procure the subject goods following a Bill-to-ship-to model, also known as Third-Party Invoicing model. Danone Thailand manufactures the subject goods using inputs either produced locally or sourced from countries outside Thailand.

2.2 The Subject goods are proposed to be imported under third party invoicing model (Bill-to-ship-to model) and the trade practice proposed to be followed is set out herein below:

a) Applicant ("the importer") will place an order on Danone Trading ELN B.V., Netherlands ("the Seller");

b) The Seller, in turn will place an order on Danone Specialized Nutrition (Thailand) Co. Ltd. ("Manufacturer/Exporter"), who manufactures the subject goods and ship them to the Applicant in India. The subject goods will be transported directly from Thailand to India without entering any other country.

c) Danone 'Thailand raises an invoice on the Seller for the supply of subject goods at the price agreed between them.

d) The seller in turn raises an invoice on the Applicant/ Importer for the supply of subject goods at the price agreed between the applicant and seller.

> The above transaction is also illustrated in the below diagram:

The margin of the Seller is computed as percentage of profitability of the Applicant during the year. Profit earned by the Applicant over and above the range (as determined under Transfer-Pricing regulations under Income tax) of the said product's turnover shall be considered as margin of the Seller. If margins are less than the range, then the Seller would issue credit notes to the Applicant. Depending on periodic profitability of the Applicant, suitable credit and debit notes would be raised by Seiler as per Arm's Length Pricing principle provided under Transfer-Pricing regulations under Income Tax Law of India. Effectively, the margin of the seller may be positive, NIL or negative. The above method of valuation is followed by the Applicant for import of other products from related parties and the same is under investigation by the Special Valuation Branch of Customs.

2.3 Danone Thailand manufactures the subject goods using inputs either procured locally or sourced from countries outside Thailand. The inputs used in manufacture of the subject goods and their source of procurement are tabulated below:

* Packing materials including packing consumables

2.4 Danone Thailand undertakes the manufacturing and packaging of the subject goods using the aforesaid inputs, before exporting it to the Applicant in India. The flow chart showing the process undertaken to manufacture the subject goods is submitted by the applicant. As per Danone Thailand, the subject goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 1901.10.20.000 of die Customs Tariff, which covers "preparations of goods of Heading 04.01 to 04.04 for infant use, put up for retail sale ".

2.5 Thailand is a part of association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). India has signed free Trade Agreement with ASEAN countries, viz., ASEAN-lndia Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation (hereinafter referred as "AIFTA"). Under the AIFTA, India has agreed to reduce the rate of duty on certain goods imported from Thailand, either with immediate effect or over a specified period. The Concessional rate benefit under the AIFTA is affected vide Notification No. 46/2.011-Customs dated 01/06/2011 issued by the Central Government under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. The aforesaid benefit is available subject to the goods fulfilling the rules of origin requirement. The rules pertaining to determination of originating criteria for availing benefits under the AIFTA are provided in the Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States . of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009 (''Rules of Origin") notified by the government of India vide Notification No. 189/2009-Cus(N.T.) dated 3 1/12/2009 issued under Section 5(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Applicant intends to avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under AIFTA on the subject goods imported from Danone Thailand.

2.6 In the present case, the Application is being filed prior to the importation of the subject goods i.e., 'Aptamil C Proteq'. The Applicant is filing the present Application seeking a Ruling on their eligibility to avail benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 and whether the rules or origin criteria pertaining to value addition and minimal operations stand satisfied in respect of the subject goods as prescribed under Notification No. 189/2009-Cus (NT) dated 31.12.2009 or not. The application for advance ruling is in relation to clauses (b) and (e) of Section 28H (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2.7 The Rules of Origin are silent regarding Third-party Invoicing. However, Article 22 of the AIFTA specifically provides for Third-Party Invoicing. Article 22 has been extracted below for reference:

Article 22

The Customs Authority in the importing Party shall accept an AIFTA Certificate of Origin where the sales invoice is issued either by a Company located in a third country or an AIFTA for the account of the said company, provided that the product meets the requirement of the AIFTA Pules of origin.

Therefore, Third-Party Invoicing is permitted under the scheme of the AIFTA as long as the goods in question meet the requirements under the Rules of Origin. Further, the Rules of Origin also do not prevent or bar the Applicant from adopting Third-party Invoicing under a Bill-to-Ship-to model. Rule 13 of the Rules of Origin requires the importer to file a Certificate of Origin ('COO') as proof of origin of the goods. The COO ought to be issued by the Designated Authority in the originating country as per the AIFTA. For this purpose, the Rules of Origin prescribes a format in which the COO is to be issued. The COO formal specifically provides the option to the importer for selecting Third-party invoicing in Box 13 thereof. Relevant portion of the COO is extracted below for ready reference -

2.8 Further, Overleaf Note No. 9 to the COO refers to third party invoicing. It requires that the details relating to the "third country invoicing" transaction are to be mentioned in Box 7 and Box 13 of the COO. Relevant portion of the said Overleaf Notes has been extracted below for reference:

OVERLEAF NOTES

9. THIRD COUNTRY INVOICING: In cases where invoices are issued by a third country, "Third Country Invoicing" in Box 13 should he ticked (si) and such information as name and country of the company issuing the invoice shall be indicated in Box 7.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Pali Devi v. Others v. Chairman, Managing Committee and Another [1996 (3) SCC 296] has held that notes can be relied upon for the purpose of interpretation of provisions under the FTA. Therefore, the overleaf notes can be safely relied upon to interpret the AIFTA. Thus, in view of the above, the import of goods under Third-Party Invoicing model is permitted under the AIFTA.

2.9 Further, the bill-to-ship-to transaction model, involving third party invoicing, is a legally recognized transaction model. The Guidelines on Certification of Origin by the World Customs Organization (hereinafter referred to as "WCO Guidelines") also recognize the practice of third country invoicing in present day international trade. The WCO Guidelines provide that in such cases, the invoice issued in the third country i.e., a third country invoice, would be submitted to the Customs Authority in the importing country. The WCO Guidelines state that a proof of origin should be accepted even when the commercial invoice is issued in the third country as long as it is discernible that the goods referred to in the proof of origin and the corresponding commercial invoice correspond to each other and satisfy the rules of origin. Relevant portion of the said Guidelines is reproduced below for ready reference:-

"6.2.2 Third country invoice (intermediary trade)

It is a common practice in today's international trade to involve an intermediary between the importer and the exporter. This practice must be recognized and the related procedures must be in place. In trade involving an intermediary residing in a third country, the invoice issued in the third country (a third country invoice) would be submitted to the Customs of the importing country to support the import declaration.

In the case where third country invoicing is involved, the following guidelines are provided to ensure the appropriate processing of intermediary trade.'

Guideline:

(INTERMEDIARY TRADE)

8. Recognizing the current practices of trade, a proof of origin issued in the country of origin should he accepted in cases where the commercial invoice is issued in a third country, as long as it is discernible that the goods referred to in the proof of origin and the invoice corresponds to each other and that the goods satisfy the applicable rules of origin.

9. When a declaration of origin is issued by an approved exporter for goods which are traded via an intermediary business based in a third country, the declaration of origin should be made out on a commercial document other than an invoice which the approved exporter issues on his/her own responsibility and which clearly identified the goods it accompanies.

In light of the above, it is the Applicant's view that the bill-to-ship-to transaction model, involving Third -party Invoicing, is permitted under the AIFTA. Consequently, the Applicant is of the view that they are entitled to import the subject goods by adopting the modus operand! as explained above and availing the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011

2.10 The Applicant proposes to import the subject goods and claim exemption under AIFTA Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011. The said Notification covers the tariff concessions provided to various goods imported from Thailand (and other ASEAN countries) into India. Sr. No. 158 of the said Notification provides for complete exemption from payment of duty with respect to goods covered under Tariff Item 1901.10.90. Rule 3 of the Rules of Origin states that the goods imported by a party shall be considered as originating if they confirm to the origin requirements under any one of the following:-

(a) Wholly Obtained or Produced Products (Rule 4); or

(b) Not Wholly Produced or Obtained Products (Rule 5).

Rule 4 provides for an exhaustive list of goods which are covered under "Wholly Obtained or Produced Products". As per the Applicant, the subject goods do not qualify as Wholly Obtained or Produced Products, as the same are not covered in the list provided in Rule 4. As per the Applicant, the subject goods will be covered under 'Not Wholly Obtained or Produced Products' provided for under Rule 5 of the Rules of Origin. However, in order io avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the AIFTA, the following criteria are required to be satisfied cumulatively:-

(i) The AIFTA content (materials obtained from ASFAN Countries and India) is not less than 35% of the FOB value.

(ii) The non-originating materials have undergone at least a change in tariff at subheading level i.e., six-digit level.

(iii) The final process of manufacture must be performed within the territory of the exporting party.

It can be seen from the above that the AIFTA content ("Regional value criteria I RVC") is computed as a percentage of FOB price. Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Origin provides two formulae for calculation of RVC, viz., the Direct Method and the Indirect Method. Both methods determine the RVC based on the FOB price of the final goods which in this case are the subject goods. In normal transaction of direct export-import, the FOB price can' be ascertained basis the price charged in the invoice raised by the exporter on the importer. However, in case of a bill-to-ship-to transaction model, the invoice is not directly raised by the exporter on the importer. Instead, the exporter raises invoice on a third party and the said third party raises invoice on the importer. Such a third-party invoice may contain mark-up element of the third party who supplies the goods to the importer through the exporter. In such a case of Third-Party Invoicing, it is the Applicant's view that the FOB price of the goods exported should be the price charged by the exporter on the importer and the margin of the third party shall not form part of the FOB price. The basis for the above understanding are explained below.

Annexure 1 to the Rules of Origin prescribes the method of computing the FOB price for determining RVC. The same is summarized below:-

a. FOB Price = Ex-factory price and other costs.

b. Ex-factory price includes production cost and profit.

c. Production cost includes cost of raw materials, labour and overheads.

d. Other cost includes expenses such as transportation, storage and warehousing, port handling, etc.

All the items covered under Appendix 1 pertain to the expenses incurred and profit earned by the exporter. It does not provide for inclusion of any amount pertaining to a third party who is not an exporter. Further, nowhere docs the AIFTA or the Rules of Origin provide for inclusion of any other amount charged or expenses incurred by any other person other than the exporter. Here, it is pertinent to note that Danone Thailand will also be determining the FOB price and the RVC using the aforementioned formula as provided in Annexure I under the Rules of Origin.

2.11 The Applicant's view is also supported by the clarification issued by the Board vide Circular No. 53/2020-Customs dated 08.12.2020 issued in the context of''Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries''. It is clarified therein that in order to calculate the originating value of the goods, value addition done in the country of origin alone is considered. The relevant portion of the Circular has been extracted below for reference:-

3. The matter has been examined. The notification no 29/2015-Cus (N.T), dated 10.03.2015 is silent upon provisions for third party invoicing, i.e. commercial invoice for goods originating in the LDC is issued in (he third country and not by the consignor in the exporting country. In some other notified preferential rules of origin, where specific provision for third party invoicing is provided, the origin of the good is nonetheless based upon the value addition done in the country of origin alone, with Free on Board (FoB) in country of origin being the base for arriving at the local value content.

Even though the above clarification was issued in the context of third-party invoicing of goods originating in a Least Developed Country (LDC), the reasoning mentioned therein is applicable even to goods originating from countries other than LDCs. It is submitted that even the ''Duly Free Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries" is silent on Third Party Invoicing. However, still the Board permitted the benefits under the said Scheme to Third-Party Invoicing transactions. Therefore, even though the Rules of Origin are silent on Third-Party Invoicing, since the same are specifically mentioned in the AIFTA, Third-Party Invoicing should be allowed in the instant case.

2.12 Further, as per the Applicant, the objective of the formulae prescribed under the Rules of Origin is only to determine the originating status of the goods being imported into the importing country. Therefore, only the costs incurred, and profits earned by the actual manufacturer of the goods in the exporting country ought to be considered for ascertaining the FOB price of the goods. In view of the above, it is the Applicant's view that the FOB price declared by the exporter alone is to be considered for ascertaining the RVC and the profit element charged if any by the third-party Seller is not to be considered for the same. In view of the above, it is the Applicant view that the margin of the Seller is not includible in the FOB price. Only the expenses incurred, and profit earned by the Danone Thailand is to be considered for computation of the FOB price.

In the present case of the Applicant, the total value of the subject goods is 2.08 EUR per unit in addition to the margin of the Seller. As mentioned supra, the margin of the Seller, in some cases, may be nil or negative also. The statement showing the break-up of the cost is tabulated below for ready reference -

*the above illustration assumes the seller's margin is positive, the seller's Margin can vary and in some cases, it may also be negative or NIL.

The detailed statement showing the illustrative cost break-up of the subject goods in this regard is also submitted by the applicant. In view of the above discussion, the margin of the Seller in the above illustration, viz., 0.06 HUR per unit, shall not be considered as part of the FOB price for the purpose of ascertaining the RVC under the AIFTA / Rules of Origin in respect of the subject goods. The applicant has clarified that the above figures are shown only to illustrate how the FOB price is to be computed in Applicant's view. More specifically, the margin of the seller shown above is on the assumption that the seller's margin is positive. In the light of the above discussions, in case the margin in negative or Nil, even then the FOB price would not be affected inasmuch as the said margin is not includible in computation of the FOB price for the purpose of determining the RVC under the AIFTA. Therefore, in the view of the Applicant, the FOB price for the purpose of ascertaining the RVC content of the subject goods under the AIFTA / Rules of Origin shall be 2.02 EUR per unit only in the above illustration.

2.13 Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Origin provides two formulae for calculation of AIFTA content i.e., the Direct Method and the Indirect Method. In terms of Rule 5, the AIFTA content can be calculated using cither of the two methods. The same have been discussed below:

(i) Determination of RVC under the Direct Method:

Under the Direct Method, the cost of the originating material used in the manufacturing of the subject goods along with other costs, etc. should be at least 35% of the FOB price of the subject goods. As has been discussed supra, the FOB price of the subject goods is to be taken as 2.02 EUR per unit, which is the FOB price of the goods as declared by Danone Thailand in its invoice. The following items are to be considered for ascertaining the RVC under direct method as per the Applicant -

* Nucleotide Premix is being imported front Malaysia. By applying the principle of accumulation, the value of the same will be included in the originating value for the purpose of calculation of RVC content.

2.14 The rationale for including the above items for ascertaining the RVC content as per the Direct Method are as follows:

With respect to the above table, Sr. Nos. 1 to 10 are packing materials which are used in filling and packing of the subject goods. Under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Origin, where goods are subject to an ad valorem percentage criterion, the value of the packages and packing materials for retail sale shall be taken into account in its origin assessment, in case the packing is considered as forming a whole with the products. As has been stated in the facts supra, the subject goods are manufactured and packaged by Danone Thailand. The packaging material indicated in the table above will form a whole with the subject goods since the Applicant will be selling the subject goods to end-consumers along with the packaging. Therefore, the packaging materials from Sr. Nos. 1 through 10 in the above table will be included in the AIFTA material cost. Further, the materials listed at Sr. Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the above table are costs/profit specifically pertaining to manufacturing of the subject goods. Labour Cost, Overhead Costs and Profits are to be included for calculation of regional-value-content, as is provided under the formula for Direct Method calculation. The item "Import Duty" mentioned at Sr. No. 15 of the above table will also be included as is provided under paragraph 2(iv) of Annexure 1 under the Rules of Origin. The Annexure I to the Rules of Origin further defines "Other Costs" as the costs incurred in placing the products in the ship for export, including but not limited to, domestic transport costs, storage and warehousing, port handling, brokerage fees, service charges, etc. Therefore, 'Inland Transportation Costs', 'Transportation Costs to Border' and "Warehousing Fixed Costs" [Sr. Nos. 16 to 18 of the above table] will be included in "Other Costs" as provided for under the Direct Method of calculation of RVC.

Substituting the values (in percentage terms) in the formula prescribed under Direct Method-

[AIFTA] = 23. 91% + 1.47% + 6. 23% + 2. 54% + 4. 66% - 38. 70% > 35%

In view of the Applicant, the RVC of the subject goods works out to be 38.70%. which is higher than the prescribed threshold. Therefore, under the Direct Method, the subject goods satisfy the RVC criterion and will qualify as originating goods.

(ii) Determination of RVC under the Indirect Method

Therefore. under the Indirect Method, the value of the non-originating (non-AIFTA) materials (along with goods of undetermined origin) used in the manufacturing of the subject goods should be less than 65% of the FOB price, of the subject goods. The details provided with respect to non-AIFTA materials are as follows:

*The above illustration assumes the seller's margin is positive, the seller s Margin can vary and in some cases, it may also be negative or NIL.

Substituting the above values in the formula-

[AIFTA = 60.32%] < 65% FOB Price

Therefore, as per the Applicant, the value of the non-originating materials works out to be 60.32% of the FOB price, which is less than the stipulated percentage of 65% as required under the Indirect Method. Therefore, as per the Applicant, under the Indirect Method, the subject goods satisfy the RVC criterion and will qualify as originating goods.

2.15 Further. Rule 7 of the Rules of Origin enumerates certain processes which will qualify as minimal operations. It states that if only these specified processes are carried out exclusively or cumulatively in the territory of a party, then the goods will not qualify as originating in the party. Examples of such processes are disassembly of products into parts, simple mixing of products, simple operations consisting of washing, painting, cutting, etc. In the present case,, the subject goods undergo the following operations in Thailand - .

The above activities carried out by Danone Thailand in Thailand is much more than the simple operations mentioned in Rule 7 of the ROO as can be seen from the above Table. Therefore, it is the Applicant's view that the activities carried out in Thailand in respect of the subject goods are not hit by minimal operation requirements prescribed under Rule 7 supra. For the above reasons, the Applicant is of the view that they are eligible to claim the benefit under the AIFTA on subject goods intended to be imported by them.

3. The Commissioner of Customs, NS-1, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva

which is the concerned jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate has responded to the subject application vide letter dated 01.01.2024 wherein section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 is reproduced and further comments on the subject application are provided as under:

3.1 The application seeking eligibility to claim the benefit under ASEAN-India free trade agreement (AIFTA) on import of infant milk-based formula "Aptamil C Proteq" from Thailand under (AIFTA) and under Third-Party invoicing [ Bill-to-Ship-to transaction model] powder is not something that require advance ruling and therefore, CAAR, Mumbai was requested not give ruling in this matter. The applicability of AIFTA Notification is to be decided under Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant FTA notification and CAROTAR 2020 by the assessing officer based on the submissions, documents and information of the importer, including FORM-1 on case to case basis for every bill of entry filed. Hence, this does not fall under the purview of Advance Ruling and thus the application should not be allowed.

3.2 As per the section 28DA, the ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement, Custom Notification 189/2009(NT) and the Custom Exemption Notification 46/2011 has clearly laid down procedure for claim of preferential rate of duty wherein the applicability of Preferential rate is decided on case to case basis. So there is no need of Advance ruling in this matter as the mandatory requirement under the AIFTA, Customs Notification no 46/2011, Section 28DA and CARO FAR 2020 need to be verified in each case.

3.3 Importer' submission:

Whether Benefit of exemption under ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement is available on import.?

Department's submission:

Yes.

Importer's submission:

Whether the 'Aptamil C Proteq' fulfils the criteria of regional value addition and minimal value addition under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement?

Department's submission:

Origin Criteria is to be decided under Section 28 DA of the Customs Act. 1962, AIFTA Agreement, Customs Notification 189/2009(NT), Customs Exemption Notification 46/2011 and CAROTAR 2020 by the assessing officer based on the submissions, documents and information provided by the importer including scrutiny of FORM-I for every bill of entry filed.

3.4 fhe importer has a poor compliance history and that the importer has already imported the product "Aptamil C Proteq" and has not complied with BIS requirements. The imported product requires BIS compliance and the same was confirmed by the Concerned Agency. However, the importer doesn't have the required certificate. Hence the matter is being adjudicated by the office.

4. Response of the applicant to the comments of Customs Commissionerate i.e. NS-I, .INCH are as under:

5. A personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 17.01.2024 in office of the CAAR, Mumbai. During the personal hearing the authorized representatives of M/s. Nutricia International Pvt. Ltd., T. Vishwanathan (Advocate), Anjali Hirawat(Advocate), Bharat Menon(Advocate) and Baisakhi Baid (Representative from Company) reiterated their written submission filed with the application. They also filed a compendium of Customs Tariff. ASEAN FTA, third party invoicing. They relied upon the CAAR Ruling-F.no. VIH/CAAR/Delhi/Boston/52/2023 dated 22.12.2023. 'They also relied upon the CBIC circular No. 53/2020 customs dated 8.12.2020 regarding Third Party Invoicing.

Ms. Shweta Suman, AC, Group-I and Shri Pragya Nand Singh, Appraiser, Group-I appeared from JNCH side and submitted that such ruling is not under the purview of this authority and that department can check the COO and Correctness of Claims of the applicant. Nobody appeared for the said personal hearing from other jurisdictional Commissionerate i.e. Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai either in person or through online mode.

Another personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 26.04.2024 in office of the CAAR, Mumbai. During the personal hearing the learned advocates, Shri T. Vishwanathan and Shri Bharat Menon on being specifically asked to clarify this authority about the investigation carried out by the Special Valuation Brand'. (SVB), New Custom House in a similar matter of the applicant about the method of valuation, whether the value declared in transaction between the seller and the applicant is at arm's length or otherwise, the learned advocates submitted as follows:

"The sale price of the imported goods, as provided in (he third party invoice, is the transaction value. This is relevant for determining the Customs duly payable al die time of import, as provided under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings before the SVB is to verify this very transactional value, as the Seller and Importer-Applicant are related parties. To calculate the RVC, the FOB value of the goods at the hands of the Manufacturer/Exporter alone is relevant. The FOB value of the goods does not depend on the outcome of the SVB proceedings. The determination of this FOB Value is not a question pending before the SVB. Thus, the question raised herein is not pending before the SVB or any other court or officer."

Nobody appeared for the said personal hearing from both the concerned jurisdictional Cornmissionerates. The office of this authority has not received any relevant records/comments from Customs Commissionerate of Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai on the subject application till date.

6. During the Personal Hearing the Ld. Advocates present for the applicant submitted a synopsis in furtharnce of their contention as under:

'That the imported goods satisfy the following conditions, as set out in the table below, and are eligible to avail the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the AIFTA.

The Ld. Advocates for the applicant further submits that the raw materials undergo series of process viz., tipping, dry blending, vibratory sifting, passed through magnet to remove contaminants before the same is nitrogen flushed and packed, the above manufacturing process is not a 'simple' process. Since the AIFTA does not define the term 'simple', the natural meaning of 'simple' as per the Dictionary can be looked into. As per Cambridge English Dictionary, the word 'Simple' is defined as "'Easy io understand or do; not difficult. " Further, the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary defines 'simple' as "Not compound, complex, complicated, elaborate, involved or composite;'1' Reference can also be made to the India-Malaysia FTA, India-UAE FTA. India-Mauritius FTA or India-Japan FTA, all of which define the term "simple" as "an activity which needs neither special skills nor machines, apparatus or equipment especially produced or installed to carry out the activity ",

The Ed. Advocates have also submitted relevant portion of the UNCTAD Handbook on Preferential Market Access for ASEAN Least Developed Countries (Part V Administrative Requirements for the Application of Preferential Treatment). The questions raised in the present application be answered in favour of the Applicant and the benefit of preferential tariff treatment under the AIFTA Notification be extended to the Applicant. Of course, when the actual imports under claim for AIFTA Notification is effected, the applicant will comply with the CAROTAR Rules, 2020.

7. I have considered all the materials placed before me in respect of the subject goods. 1 have gone through the submissions made by the applicant during the personal hearing as well as the additional submissions made subsequently. The comments received from the jurisdictional commissioner have also been perused and placed on record. I proceed to deliberate upon the issue on the basis of documents, submissions and information available on record and relevant provision of law.

7.1 The applicant has submitted that as per Danone Thailand, the subject goods are classifiable under Tariff Item 1901.10.20.000 of the Customs Tariff, which covers "preparations of goods of Heading 04.01 to 04.04 for infant use, put up for retail sale". However, the issue of fulfilment of origin criteria requires examinations of the provisions of rules of origin. Rules of origin agreed upon between/among countries who are parties to free trade agreements lay down certain objective parameters to decide whether the goods produced/manufactured and traded are eligible to the preferential tax/duty treatment. It is apparent that a product may be obtained or produced by only one country, but it can also be a product manufactured with the input or materials sourced from several other countries. Rules of origin are used to determine if the imported shipments are eligible for duty-free treatment or levy of concessional/reduced duties under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) rules of the country. In the instant case the origin criteria will be decided in view of the provisions of the Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the preferential trade agreement between the Governments of the Slates of ASEAN and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009.

8. In the present case applicant has claimed the benefit under Article 22 of the AIFTA. I find that the Article 22 of the Operational Certificate Procedures, as mentioned in Annexure ll of the AIFTA Rules of Origin, allows for issue of sales invoice by a party in third country. It reads as follows:

"The Customs Authority in the importing party shall accept an AIFTA Certificate of Origin where the sales invoice is issued either by a company located in a third country or an AIFTA exporter for the account of the said company, provided that the product meets the requirements of the AIFTA Rules of Origin."

The Applicant, in support of their claim to third country invoicing, have relied upon the CAAR. Rulings -F.no. VIII/CAAR/Delhi/Boston/52/2023 dated 22/12/2023. Further. I find that Hon'ble CESTAT judgment in the case of M/s. Olarn Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Tuticorin, - 2018-TIOL- 2060-CESTAT-MAD is also squarely applicable to decide the case at hand, wherein, it has been held that invoice issued by party in third country will not disallow the benefit of AIFTA certificate of origin.

It is very important to note that in accordance with Rule 13 of AIFTA Rules of Origin, any claim for preferential tariff treatment has to be supported by Certificate of Origin as per the Annexure III of the said rules by following Operational Certificate Procedures.

It is observed that the Rules of Origin prescribe a format in which the COO is to be issued. The COO format specifically provides the option to the importer for selecting Third-party invoicing in Box 13 thereof. Further. Overleaf Note No. 9 to the COO stipulates that in cases where invoices are issued by a. third country. "Third Country Invoicing" in Box 13 should be ticked N) and such information as name and country of the company issuing the invoice shall be indicated in Box 7. WCO guidelines throws light on this aspect and I find that WCO has also validated third party invoicing while commenting as follows:

'It is a common practice in today's international trade to involve an intermediary between the importer and the exporter. This practice must be recognized and the related procedures must be in place. In trade involving an intermediary residing in a third country, the invoice issued in the third country (a third country invoice) would be submitted to the Customs of the importing country to support the import declaration

9. Further, in accordance with Rule 5 of the AIFTA Rules of Origin, the goods not being wholly produced or obtained shall be deemed to be originating if all the following conditions are satisfied by the applicant:

(i) the AIFTA content is not less than 35 percent of the FOB value: and

(ii) the non-originating materials have undergone at least a change in tariff subheading (CTSH) level i.e., at six digits of the Harmonized System:

Provided that the final process of the manufacture is performed within the territory of the exporting party.

Rule 5(2) of the AIFTA Rules of Origin provides that the 35% AIFTA content can be determined using the following methods:

(i) Direct Method: Under this method the total of AIFTA material cost, Direct labour cost, direct overhead cost, other costs and profit is to be taken into consideration and the same should be above or equal to 35% of FOB value.

(ii) Indirect Method: Under this method, value of imported non-AIFTA material and value of undetermined originating materials/parts or produce is considered which should be under or less than 65% of FOB value.

I find that these are the most important aspects for examination of present CAAR-1 application.

9.1 The applicant in the CAAR-1 form has submitted that the proposed product of import, i.e. "Aptamil C Proteq" is manufactured by M/s. Danone Thai land located in Thailand. They have also submitted an indicative calculation of the AIFTA content of the "Aptamil C Proteq"; I find that the applicant has not submitted any valid Certificate of Origin in the present case, rather the applicant has submitted some tables {reproduce supra) showing the value of each input used to manufacture the subject product i.e. "Aptamil C Proteq". The applicant has also indicated that what percentage each input constitutes in the total FOB price of "Aptamil C Proteq". In these indicative calculations and the method used, the applicant, has shown that in the "Aptamil C Proteq" the total of AIFTA material cost, Direct labour cost, direct overhead cost, other costs and profit have been taken into consideration and the same is above or equal to 35% of FOB value. I concur with the applicant's calculation, insofar as, Import Duty, Inland transportation, transportation cost to border, warehousing fixed cost and profit of Danone Thailand are added to reach the minimum 35% RVC criterion.

9.1.1 Further, it is quite obvious from the methods stipulated in the Rule 5(2) of the AIFTA Rules of Origin used for calculating the RVC content, that the applicant's calculation is right, insofar as, cost of raw materials of AIFTA party origin. labour cost, overhead cost and insurance cost are added to reach the minimum 35% RVC criterion. In view of the method of computing the FOB price specified in Annexure 1 to the Rules of Origin, I concur with the applicant's calculation, insofar as, Ex-factory price (cost of raw materials, labour cost and overhead cost and profit of the manufacturer) and other costs i.e. transportation, storage, and warehousing, port handling charges are added to reach the minimum 35% RVC criterion. Rule 9 having title "Treatment of Packing" inter-alia states that where a product is subject to an ad valorem percentage criterion, the value of the packages and packing materials for retail sale shall be taken into account in its origin assessment, in case the packing is considered as forming a whole with products. Therefore, I Find that the applicant is right in their contention that the packaging materials from Sr. Nos. I through 10 in the table reproduced in para 2.13 (supra) will be included in the AIFTA material cost.

9.1.2 However, I find that calculations shown.in the tables above have only referential value. The applicant has described value (in EUR) of various components used to manufacture the subject product i.e. "Aptamil C Proteq". It appears from these indicative calculations reproduced in table in para 2.13 (supra) that minimum RVC content criterion is fulfilled by the applicant that is around 38.70% of FOB price of "Aptamil C Proteq". But, it is quite obvious that value is not something that can be pegged at a fixed number, these are subject to market condition. The values shown by the applicant may fluctuate as per the market condition in future. Further, the. applicant itself has declared/submitted that The seller's margin can vary and in some cases, it may also be negative to NIL'.

9.2 In the present case, the applicant has specifically asked 'whether the margin earned by the Danone Trading ELN B.V., Netherlands (''the Seller") will be included in the FOB price of the subject goods for the purposes of determining the regional-value-content?'

In this regard, it is observed that the term FOB is defined in the Rule 2 of Rules of origin published in Annexure-1 of the Notification No. 189/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st December. 2009 as (Emphasis supplied):

1. FOB price shall be calculated as follows:-

(a) FOB Price = Ex-Factory Price + Other Costs

(b) Other Costs in the calculation of the FOB price shall refer to the costs incurred in placing the products in the ship for export, including but not limited to, domestic transport costs, storage and warehousing, port handling, brokerage fees, service charges, etc.

2. Formula for ex-factory price:-

(a) Ex-Factory Price = Production Cost + Profit

(b) Formula for production cost,

(i) Production Cost = Cost of Raw Materials + Labour Cost + Overhead Cost

(ii) Cost of Raw Materials shall include:-

Cost of raw materials-

Freight and insurance

(iii) Labour Cost shall include:-

Wages-

Remuneration-

Other employee benefits associated with the manufacturing process

(iv) Overhead Costs, (non-exhaustive list) shall include, but not limited to.

real property items associated with the production process (insurance, factory rent and leasing, depreciation on buildings, repair and maintenance, taxes, interests on mortgage)

leasing of and interest payments for plant and equipment

> factory security

> insurance (plant, equipment and materials used in the manufacture of the goods)

> utilities (energy, electricity, water and other utilities directly attributable to the production of the good)

> research, development, design and engineering

> dies, moulds, tooling and the depreciation, maintenance and repair of plant and equipment

'royalties or licenses (in connection with patented machines or processes used in (he manufacture of the good or the right to manufacture the good)

inspection and testing of materials and the goods

> storage and handling in the factory

> disposal of recyclable wastes

> cost elements in computing the value of raw materials, i.e. port and clearance charges and import duties paid for dutiable component.

9.2.1 It is amply clear from the definition of FOB reproduced supra that the words 'margin' or the phrase 'margin earned by seller' are nowhere mentioned therein. The definition specifics the components that are to be added to calculate the FOB price at the place of exporter. The margin earned (to say by the Danone Trading ELN B.V., Netherlands "the Seller") is not specifically provided in the definition of FOB for inclusion on one hand for the purposes of determining the regional-value-content, however, on the other hand, it is not forthcoming from the records submitted by the applicant that whether such margin is in the nature of "leasing or research, development, design and engineering, or it is of royalties or licenses (in connection with patented machines or processes used in the manufacture of the good or the right to manufacture the good), or whether it is in the nature of inspection and testing of material and the goods and other overhead costs" or otherwise, which is paid or to be paid by the manufacturer to the Seller so as to effect the subject export. Therefore, it can safely be deduced that if such margin is in the nature of "leasing or research, development, design and engineering, or royalties or licenses (in connection with patented machines or processes used in the manufacture of the good or the right to manufacture the good), or inspection and testing of material" which is paid or to be paid by the manufacturer to the Seller or any other kind of Overhead cost includable in respect of clause 2 (iv) of definition of FOB price, as discussed above, so as to effect the subject export, it is to be included in the FOB price of the subject goods for the purposes of determining the RVC.

9.3 It has been submitted by the applicant that the all the non-originating material have undergone a complete change in tariff sub-heading at six digits' level of the Harmonized system, The applicant has submitted that Danone Thailand manufactures the subject goods using inputs cither procured locally or sourced from countries outside Thailand. The inputs used in manufacture of the subject goods and their source of procurement, as submitted by the applicant, are tabulated in para 2.3 (supra). From this table it is clear that following inputs are procured by M/s. Danone Thailand from non-AlFTA parties.

Further, from the submissions of the applicant reproduced in para 6 (supra) it is amply clear that all six inputs procured by Danone Thailand from non-AIFTA parties have undergone a change at 4-digit level. The applicant submitted that as per Danone Thailand, the subject goods are classifiable under 'Tariff Item. 1901.10.20.000 of the Customs Tariff, which covers "preparations of goods of Heading 04.01 to 04.04 for infant use, put up for retail sale",

whereas classification for Infant formula (IF.Base. 110) is declared as 19019019 which is procured from New Zealand, classification for Infant Formula (If Pre-Base.122) is declared as 19019039 which is procured from Ireland, classification for Lactose Ref Edib Special Granu is declared as 17021 100 which is procured from Denmark, classification for DMA Oil Powder 50 Percent D201 is declared as 21069099 which is procured from Australia, classification for ARA20 IF D004 is declared as 21069099 which is procured from Australia, classification for Bifidobacterium Breve M-16V is declared as 30024900 which is procured from Japan.

On examination of each and every item mentioned in the above list of non-originating components it is observed that the non-originating materials have undergone at least a change in tariff sub-heading (CTSH) level i.e. at six digit of the Harmonised System from pre-production stage to postproduction stage and accordingly I find that the applicant fulfils the condition of Rule 5(l)(ii).

9.4 Further, the applicant also described the manufacturing process of the subject product i.e. "Aptamil C Proteq" carried out by the manufacturer in Thailand to substantiate the fact that the activity undertaken in Thailand is a part of manufacturing process in the originating country. I find from the description of manufacturing process undertaken by the supplier in Thailand that it fulfils one of the conditions mentioned in the proviso to the Rule 5. Further, Rule 7 of the Rules of Origin states that a product shall not be considered originating in a party if the following operations are undertaken exclusively by itself or in combination in the territory of that party: disassembly of products into parts, simple mixing of products, simple operations consisting of washing, painting, cutting, etc. India-Malaysia FTA, India-UAE FTA, India-Mauritius FTA or India-Japan FTA define the term "simple" as "an activity which needs neither special skills nor machines, apparatus or equipment especially produced or installed to carry out the activity".

However, In the present case, the subject product "Aptamil C Proteq'' is manufactured in Thailand by the operations namely tipping, dry blending, vibratory sifting, passing through magnet as explained in detail by the applicant in para 2.15 (supra) and I am of the view that these activities carried out by Danone Thailand in Thailand is much more than the simple operations mentioned in Rule 7. These activities cannot be considered simple operations like washing, painting, culling, mixing etc. Hie applicant has declared that the ingredients as per formulation hatch quantity i.e., Blend 1. Blend 2 and other micronutrients are added in the Blender as per de fined and validated sequence through sieve to make a uniform final blend of the product. Further, micronutrients like Probiotic, Nucleotides DHA and ARA are heat sensitive and needs to be handled in controlled condition of Temperature and Humidity. It's a critical step in manufacturing where ingredients are mixed at validated RPM of blender for defined time to make uniform blend of Finished product to deliver the declared nutrient delivery per serve. Further, the final blend is passed through magnetic separator and metal detector to remove any metallic contaminants. The applicant has elaborated the manufacturing process using the words "as per formulation batch quantity, as per defined and validated sequence, ingredients are mixed at validated RPM of blender for defined time to make uniform blend of finished product and further the declared nutrient delivery per serve is to be delivered. Therefore, on the basis of the submission of the applicant in para 2.15, I concur with the applicant's contention that the activities carried out in Thailand in respect of the subject goods are not hit by minimal operation requirements prescribed under Rule 7.

10. Operational Certification Procedures for the Rules of Origin for the AIFTA are enumerated in Appendix D of the 'Agreement on trade in goods under the framework Agreement on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation between the Republic of India and the association of Southeast ASIAN Nations'. Article 1 of the said Procedures states that the AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall be issued by the Government authorities (issuing Authority) of the exporting party. Article 3 ibid states that for the purposes of determining originating status, the issuing Authority shall have the right to call for any supporting documentary evidence or carry out any checks considered appropriate. Article 4 ibid states that the exporter and /or the manufacturer of the products qualified for preferential tariff treatment shall apply in writing to the issuing Authority of the exporting Party requesting for the pre-exportation verification of the origin of the products. The result of the verification, subject to review periodically or whenever appropriate, shall be accepted as the supporting evidence in verifying the origin of the said products to be exported thereafter. The pre-exportation verification may not apply to products, the origin of which by their nature can be easily verified. Article 5 ibid inter-alia states that the exporter or his authorised representative shall submit a written application for the AIFTA Certificate of Origin together with appropriate supporting documents proving that the products to be exported qualify for the issuance of an AIFTA Certificate of Origin. Article 6 ibid inter-alia states that the issuing Authority shall, to the best of their competence and ability, carry out proper examination upon each application for the AIFTA Certificate of Origin to ensure that', (i)......; (ii)....; (iii) other statements of the AIFTA Certificate of Origin correspond to supporting documentary evidence submitted', ......... Article 10 ibid states that the AIFTA Certificate of Origin shall be issued by the issuing Authority of the exporting Party at the time of exportation, or within three (3) working days from the date of shipment whenever the products to be exported can be considered originating in that Party within the meaning of AIFTA Rules of Origin.

From the articles discussed above it is amply clear that submission of a Certificate of Origin at the time of claiming benefits of the preferential treatment is a mandatory condition. The issuing Authority in Thailand will ensure that minimum RVC content criterion is fulfilled and it is very categorically stated in article 3 that the for the purposes of determining originating status, the issuing Authority shall have the right to call for any supporting documentary evidence or carry out any checks considered appropriate. Therefore, it is observed that the exporter M/s. Danone Thailand has to satisfy the issuing Authority of Thailand that the subject product to be exported by them fulfil all the condition of the AIFTA to be certified as a AIFTA party origin product.

10.1 It is observed that the submission of Certificate of Origin is a mandatory condition and it has to be submitted by the importers so that the Customs authorities legally accept the claim in the importing country that the particular goods qualify lor the preferential tariff treatment accorded by the law. Only those importers with a valid Certificate of Origin are allowed to claim preferential tariff treatment for originating goods.

10.2 Certification and verification are procedural aspects of rules of origin but they are of no less importance. Even if a product fulfils the substantive origin criteria, it will not be entitled to preferential treatment unless it complies with the procedural requirements. Most importantly, to be eligible for preferential treatment, a consignment must be accompanied by a proof of origin. Proof of origin or certificate of origin is unequivocally accepted in trade agreements throughout the world. For the purposes of implementing the Rules of Origin under the AIFTA. the Operational Certification Procedures on the issuance and verification of the AIFTA Certificate of Origin and. the other related administrative requirements are followed.

10.3 In view of the above, the importer M/s. Nutricia International Private Limited has to submit Certificate of Origin issued by the issuing Authority of Thailand and as per the proviso of the notification no. 46/201 I dated 01.06.2011, the importer has to prove to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of the countries as mentioned in Appendix I or Appendix II. as the case may be, in accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 189/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31 st December, 2009.

10.4 In view of the above discussions and observations. I have come to the conclusion that the questions asked in the present application i.e. "whether benefit of exemption under AIFTA is available on import of "Aptamil C Proteq" and whether the imported subject goods fulfil the prescribed regional-value-content criteria", cannot be answered in an advance ruling as the applicant has not submitted a Certificate of Origin for the subject product. I am of the view that the concerned jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate is right in their contention that the applicability of AIFTA Notification is to be decided under Section 28DA of the Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant FTA notification and CAROTAR 2020 by the assessing officer based on the submissions, documents and information of the importer, including FORM-1 on case to case basis for every bill of entry filed. The ASEAN India Free Trade Agreement, Custom Notification 1 89/2009(NT) and the Custom Exemption Notification 46/2011 have clearly laid down procedure for claim of preferential rate of duty wherein the applicability of Preferential rate is decided on case to case basis. Conditions/provisions and procedures stipulated in AIFTA, Customs Notification no 46/2011, Section 28 DA of the Customs Act, 1962 and CAROTAR 2020 need to be verified in each case.

I find that the Sr. No. 157 of the Notification 46/2011-Cus dated June 01. 2011. as amended, reads as follows:

Thailand is listed at sr. no. 3 in the Appendix 1 of this notification. The benefit of exemption under Noti. 46/2011- Cus. is available to all goods falling under sub heading 1901 10 of the first schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. As the subject product i.e. "Aptamil C Proteq" are claimed to be classifiable under CT! 1901 1090, it can be construed that subject goods can also fall under the purview of Sr. No. 157 on fulfilling the conditions of the notification.

11. The department has objected the imports made in the past by the applicant on the basis of non-fulfilment of BIS which is not the subject matter in the instant application before this authority. Similarly, the classification of the subject import goods "Aptamil C Proteq'1 is also not questioned in the present application. The only limited questions in this application which are asked have been discussed in detail hereinabove. Accordingly, based on the submissions made by the applicant, above discussions, observations, findings, the Customs 'Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the- Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules. 2009 and also a previous AAR ruling F.no. VIIl/CAAR/Delhi/Boston/52/2023 elated 22/12/2023 passed by Advance Ruling Authority, Delhi on the similar matter, my answers in the matter in respect of the questions asked in the present CAAR- I application are as per follows: -

Question: Whether the Bill-to-Ship to model/third party invoicing model adopted by the Applicant is permitted under the AIFTA/Rules of Origin?

Answer: Yes,, the proposed Bill-to-Ship to model/third party invoicing model adopted by the Applicant is permitted under the AIFTA/Rules of Origin.

Question:- Whether the margin earned by the Danone Trading ELN B.V., Netherlands ("the Seller") will be included in the FOB price of the subject goods for the purposes of determining the regional-value-content?

Answer: if such margin is in the nature of "leasing or research, development, design and engineering, or royalties or licenses (in connection with patented machines or processes used in the manufacture of the good or the right to manufacture the good), or inspection and testing of material" which is paid or to be paid by the manufacturer to the Seller or it is in ambit of any other kind of Overhead cost includable in respect of clause 2 (iv) of definition of FOB price, it is to be included in the FOB price of the subject goods for the purposes of determining the regional-value-content. Otherwise, such margin earned by the Danone 'Trading ELN B.V., Netherlands ("the Seller") is not includable in the FOB price.

Question: Whether the activity carried out by Danone Thailand entity amounts to manufacture and hence falls out of de minimal value addition exclusion?

Answer: Yes, the above discussed activity carried out by Danone 'Thailand entity amounts to manufacture and hence falls out of de minimal value addition exclusion.

Question: Whether the imported subject goods fulfil the prescribed regional-value-content criteria? and Whether benefit of exemption under AIFTA is available on import of "Aptamil C Proteq"?

Answer: This cannot be answered at this stage in advance ruling. The applicant has to submit a valid Certificate of Origin and prove to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of the countries as mentioned in Appendix I or Appendix II, as the case may be, in accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 189/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st December, 2009.

I rule Accordingly.

(P K Rameshwaram)

Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai.