Review petitions cannot be used to reargue cases; they are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, as upheld by the court.

ORDER :

(J. NISHA BANU, J.)

Since the issue involved in all these review applications are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Mr.K.Umesh Rao, learned standing counsel for the review petitioners and Mr.Vijay Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of For Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. This Court, after hearing the arguments made on either side, vide its judgment dated 06.12.2024 upheld the findings of the Advance Ruling Authority made in its Ruling dated 31.03.2017. Initially, when the review petitioners preferred an appeal before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR), New Delhi, that appeal stood rejected by the concerned Authority as 'not admissible' and as 'non maintainable'. Against the said order of rejection by the AAR, when the review petitioners filed writ petition, the same came to be dismissed, thereby again upholding the Advance Ruling dated 31.03.2017 and the classification of the goods imported / sought to be imported by the Importer/respondent herein is under Chapter 21 and not under Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Heading.

4. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India submitted that though the Advance Ruling obtained by the respondent / Importer was binding on them under Section 28J of the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962, the goods imported by the Importer did not match with the said Advance Ruling dated 31.03.2017. It is pertinent to note that when a batch of writ petitions were filed by the respondent/Importer before this Court in W.P.Nos.30426, 26225 & 27828 of 2022, the learned Single Judge has in detail discussed about the classification of the goods which would fall under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and further directed for taking samples from the consignment and get them tested within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. Even when such samples were drawn from the consignments imported by the Importer and tested at the Doctor's Analytical Laboratories Pvt.ltd. Navi Mumbai, dated 20.12.2022, the report was also in favour of the Importer classifying the goods under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. When the key issues were elaborately dealt with in the judgment dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court, the contentions raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India are merely rearguing the case, by way of filing this review petition.

5. Perusal of the memo filed by the respondent Importer transpires that in almost identical circumstances in the respondent's own case of import of the very same product through Mumbai Port, where the Customs Authorities in Mumbai did not release the goods, the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition No.10873 of 2022 seeking release of the goods on payment of appropriate duty under CTH 2106 9030. The High Court vide its order dated 04.10.2022, directed the respondents in the said Writ petition to get the samples from the consignments for testing at Doctor's Analytical Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, that identical reports as in the instant case were furnished and the Adjudicating Authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Group I & IA, NS-1, JNCH, rejected the classification adopted by the respondent herein and re-classified the goods under CTH 0802. Aggrieved by the same the respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.10512 of 2023 and vide order dated 18.12.2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, passed the following order:-

“16. In the ruling pronounced by the AAR dated 31st March 2017, respondents have accepted in paragraph 7,