Off-Road Mining Tyres (WD989/RLB989) Held Classifiable Under Customs Tariff Item 40118000 — CAAR Mumbai

Background and Context

The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai recently adjudicated an advance ruling application filed by M/s R K International, a Mumbai-based importer, regarding the customs classification of new off-the-road (OTR) mining rubber tyres bearing patterns WD989/RLB989. The proposed imports were to be sourced from Double Coin Tyre Group (Shanghai) Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., China, with Nhava Sheva (JNCH) as the designated port of entry.

The two specific sizes under consideration were:

  • 10.00R20, Load Index 149/146, Speed Symbol D
  • 11.00R20, Load Index 152/149, Speed Symbol D

The central question before the Authority was whether these goods merited classification under Customs Tariff Item 40118000 — covering tyres "of a kind used on construction, mining or industrial handling vehicles and machines" — under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or whether they fell instead under CTI 40112000, which covers tyres of a kind used on buses or lorries.

Maintainability of the Application

Prior Ruling and Fresh Application

Before proceeding to the merits, the Authority addressed a threshold question of maintainability. The applicant had previously approached CAAR Mumbai on the same goods, which had resulted in Advance Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/156/2025-26 dated 23.02.2026. The present application was filed thereafter, raising an issue as to whether it was barred under the statute.

Interpretation of Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962

The Authority examined Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which bars an application in two specific circumstances:

  1. Where the question raised is already pending in the applicant's case before any officer of Customs, the Appellate Tribunal, or any Court; or
  2. Where the same question has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.

Notably, the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2) does not extend to situations where an earlier advance ruling has been rendered by the Authority itself. The legislature, had it intended to bar subsequent applications on account of a prior CAAR ruling, would have expressly said so. No such language appears in the provision.

The Authority held that the earlier advance ruling issued by CAAR Mumbai was neither a proceeding pending before, nor a matter decided by, any of the bodies enumerated under Section 28-I(2). Accordingly, no statutory bar applied.

Significance of Fresh Technical Evidence

The Authority further noted that the applicant had placed substantially enhanced technical material on record, which had either not been available or had not been considered during the earlier proceedings. This fresh evidence included:

  • A detailed technical clarification issued directly by the manufacturer, M/s Double Coin Tyre Group (Shanghai) Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., addressing the engineering design, operational parameters, and intended applications of the WD989 and RLB989 tyre patterns
  • Clarification that catalogue categorisations and marketing descriptions are merely indicative and do not govern tariff classification
  • An updated Chartered Engineer's certificate from Sharani Associates (empanelled at JNCH vide Public Notice No. 87/2024-25 dated 14.10.2024), confirming the off-road mining nature and dominant use of the subject tyres
  • Requirement letters from mining companies — including Dev Mining Company and Base Infra Pvt. Ltd. — seeking supply of OTR radial tyres for dumpers and tippers deployed in challenging mining environments
  • Comparative technical analysis distinguishing Off-The-Road (OTR) tyres from Truck and Bus Radial (TBR) tyres

The Authority concluded that the fresh application was not a mere attempt at reconsideration but was grounded in additional technical evidence directly bearing upon the classification question. The application was accordingly held to be maintainable.

General Rules for Interpretation

Classification under the Customs Tariff is primarily governed by Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff, which mandates that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings, sub-headings, and the relevant Section Notes and Chapter Notes.

The Authority relied upon the consistent position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: