Case Law Details
In re Madvic Agro India Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai considered an application filed by M/s. Madvic Agro India Private Limited seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole & Cut)” under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The application was filed under Section 28-I(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and was received on 25.02.2026.
The applicant proposed to import roasted areca nuts from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Burma. According to the applicant, roasted areca nuts are classifiable under Chapter Heading 2008 and specifically under Tariff Item 2008 1991, which covers roasted nuts. The applicant relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes and submitted that mere roasting of areca nuts would place the goods under the said tariff classification. The applicant also cited various judicial decisions in support of the contention that HSN Explanatory Notes are dependable guides for classification matters.
The office of CAAR forwarded the application to the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate at Tuticorin for comments and records. However, no response was received from the Commissionerate.
A personal hearing was conducted on 28.04.2026, during which the applicant’s senior counsel reiterated that the imported goods should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 2008 1991. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in matters involving classification of roasted areca nuts, including the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate versus Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. and others, which had also been upheld by the Supreme Court. It was also submitted that the moisture content of the goods would remain below 7%. No representative appeared on behalf of the department during the hearing.
CAAR examined Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that the Authority shall not allow an application where the question raised is already pending or has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.
The Authority noted that the issue relating to classification of roasted areca or betel nuts had already been adjudicated by the Madras High Court in its judgment dated 01.08.2023 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023. The Authority further observed that its earlier rulings, as well as rulings issued by CAAR Delhi in several similar applications, were based on the same High Court judgment.
CAAR held that the issue raised by the applicant was identical to a matter already decided by a Court and therefore attracted the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the Authority decided not to allow the application and rejected the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Madvic Agro India Private Limited (IEC No.: AARCM1762B) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) filed an application (CAAR- 1) for advance ruling in the Office of Secretary, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) Mumbai. The said application was received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 25.02.2026 along with its enclosures in terms of Section 2811(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ also). The Applicant is seeking advance ruling on the issue of classification of the “Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole & Cut)” under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Submission by the Applicant:
2.1 The applicant submitted that they are a firm in the name and style of M/s. Madvic Agro India Private Limited (IEC No.: AARCM1762B). They intend to import “Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole) And Roasted Areca Nuts Cut” from, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Burma. As per the present scheme of Classification of commodities under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Fruits, Nuts and other edible parts of plants are classified under the Chapter Heading 2008 and other roasted nuts are particularly and specifically classified under the Tariff Item 2008 1991.
2.2 The Applicant submitted that the proposed item to be imported are ‘roasted betel nut/ areca nuts (whole/cut) and are classifiable under the HS Code 2008 1991 by virtue of mere roasting as clearly given in the HSN Explanatory Note by the product name. The Applicant further submitted several case law citations wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided and reiterated that the HSN Explanatory Note is the safe and dependable guide in the matters of classification of items.
3. Port of Import and reply from Jurisdictional Commissionerate
3.1 In terms of provisions of the Section 28-I (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sub-Regulation no. (7) of the Regulation no. 8 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021, on the receipt of the said application, office of the CAAR, Mumbai forwarded copy of the said application/submissions to the concerned Jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate i.e. The Commissioner of Customs (Import), Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin calling upon them to furnish the relevant records with comments, if any, in respect of said application on 20.03.2026. 09.04.2026 & 24.04.2026. However, no reply has been received from Jurisdictional Commissionerate till date.
Records of Personal Hearing
4.1 A personal hearing was held on 28.04.2026 at 11.30 AM wherein, Shri A. K. Jayaraj, Sr. Advocate appeared for the Personal Hearing in the matter on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated the facts of the case and claimed the subject imported goods to be classified under CTH He relied upon the case laws i.e. ruling passed in the matter of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate Vs M/s Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd., & Others and M/s Universal Impex in W.A. Nos. 3647 and 3648 of 2024 and C.M.P. No. 28679 and 28696 of 2024 order of Hon’ble Madras High Court which is upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The moisture content would be below 7%.
Nobody appeared for PH from the department side.
5. Discussions and Findings:
5.1 As the applicant cited that the issue had already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court in which ruling of the authority was upheld. In this backdrop, the relevant excerpts of sub section (2) of section 281 of Customs Act, 1962 is important, which is produced below:
“(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for, by order either allow or reject the application; Provided that the Authority shall not allow the application 59[***] where the question raised in the application is,-
(a) already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court;
(b) same as in a matter decided already by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court:”
6. In the present case, the precise issue relating to the classification of roasted areca/betel nuts has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a judgement dated 01.08.2023 in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) Nos 600/2023, No. 1206/2023 and No: 1750/2023, in the matter of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate Vs M/s Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. M/s. Neena Enterprises and M/s Universal Impex in which the ruling passed by this authority was upheld.
7. This Authority as well as CAAR, Delhi have already issued multiple rulings in a sizeable number of applications intending import of the subject ‘Roasted Areca Nuts’ through various major/minor ports/Inland container Depots, spread across the country. The all such rulings are based on the same matter as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its order dated 01.08.2023 cited above. In the instant case also the issue is identical/similar one.
8. Accordingly, I find that the question raised by the applicant is identical to one already decided by a Court, and the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 squarely applies.
9. In view of the forgoing facts and records of the case, I hereby observe and hold that the question raised in this very application has already been decided by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its order dated 01.08.2023 (cited as above), therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-I, sub-section (2); and proviso (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, I decide ‘not to allow’ the application.
10. The application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
