In re Patel Stores (CAAR Mumbai)
Summary: M/s. Patel Stores, a proprietorship concern engaged in trading, filed an application before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking classification of Oven Roasted Areca Nuts, Oven Roasted Pistachios, Oven Roasted Almond Nuts and Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts proposed to be imported through Nhava Sheva. The applicant also sought eligibility for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011.
The applicant proposed classification of the roasted areca nuts, pistachios and almonds under CTH 2008 19 91, “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, and roasted cashew nuts under CTH 2008 19 10. The application explained that the earlier tariff entry CTH 2008 19 20, covering “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, had been substituted by the Finance Act, 2025, with CTH 2008 19 91. The applicant contended that the substantive description remained unchanged and that the substituted tariff item continued to fall within the scope of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.
For roasted areca nuts, the applicant relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008, which expressly refer to almonds, ground-nuts, areca or betel nuts and other nuts which are dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted. The applicant also distinguished roasting from the processes contemplated by Chapter 8 and contended that roasted areca nuts were appropriately classifiable under Chapter 20. Reliance was placed upon earlier CAAR rulings and the judgment of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs Vs Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd., where roasted areca/betel nuts had been held classifiable under CTH 2008 19 20.
The applicant stated that the roasting process for areca nuts involved de-husking, drying, repeated heating and roasting, cooling and re-feeding into the oven, with the moisture content ultimately reduced to below 10%. In additional submissions after the personal hearing, the applicant explained that roasting was carried out at a controlled temperature and that the moisture content was brought down to approximately 6%, resulting in a brittle, nutty and crunchy product.
The Authority observed that the classification of roasted areca/betel nuts had already been considered in earlier advance rulings and by the Madras High Court. The High Court had affirmed classification of roasted betel/areca nuts under CTH 2008 19 20, subsequently substituted by CTH 2008 19 91, and had recognised roasting as distinct from drying. The Authority found no materially distinguishing facts or circumstances warranting a fresh examination of the same classification issue. Accordingly, applying Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, it declined to pronounce a ruling on classification of the Oven Roasted Areca Nuts.
For Oven Roasted Pistachios, Almond Nuts and Cashew Nuts, the Authority examined the process disclosed by the applicant. The applicant stated that the oven was preheated to 350°F and the nuts were placed in a single layer and roasted for 10–15 minutes. The Authority noted that no comprehensive technical particulars or independent test evidence had been furnished regarding the precise changes caused by the roasting process, including changes in moisture content, colour, texture, flavour or taste. Nevertheless, the disclosed process was considered in determining classification.
The Authority distinguished drying from roasting, observing that drying is primarily directed towards removal or reduction of moisture, whereas roasting involves heat treatment producing characteristics ordinarily associated with roasted products. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not specifically define “roasted”, and the expression was therefore considered in its ordinary and commercial sense.
The Authority referred to the tariff structure under Heading 2008 and noted that CTH 2008 19 10 specifically covers “Cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted”, whereas CTH 2008 19 91 covers “Other roasted nuts and seeds”. Applying Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation and the principle that a specific tariff entry prevails over a general or residuary entry, the Authority held that Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts were classifiable under CTH 2008 19 10. The Authority referred to Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. for the principle concerning resort to a residuary entry only where no specific entry covers the goods.
For Oven Roasted Almonds and Oven Roasted Pistachios, the Authority found no separate specific tariff entry and held that they were appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91, “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, in accordance with Rule 1 of the General Rules for Interpretation and the terms of Heading 2008 and the relevant tariff sub-heading.
The Authority also considered the applicability of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011. It held that the benefit was subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under the notification, including applicable requirements relating to originating status and documentary evidence. Entitlement could not be determined solely on the basis of classification and was required to be independently verified by the jurisdictional Customs authorities at the time of importation. The Authority also referred to the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020, wherever applicable.
Accordingly, the Authority concluded that no ruling was pronounced on classification of Oven Roasted Areca Nuts; Oven Roasted Pistachios and Oven Roasted Almonds were classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91; and Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts were classifiable under CTH 2008 19 10. The ruling was confined to classification on the basis of the facts, documents and submissions on record, while jurisdictional Customs authorities retained liberty to undertake examination, sampling, testing and verification of imported goods and relevant documents at the time of importation.
Cases Discussed
- L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs — relied upon regarding the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
- Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) — relied upon regarding classification and the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
- Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), — relied upon for the principle that HSN is a safe guide for tariff classification.
- Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. Business Forms Ltd. — relied upon regarding consideration of HSN Explanatory Notes.
- Commissioner of Customs Vs Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. — Madras High Court decision concerning classification of roasted areca/betel nuts.
- Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd., 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.) — relied upon concerning preference for a specific tariff entry over a residuary entry.
- Western India Plywoods Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, Cochin — referred to regarding cautious resort to residuary tariff entries.
- Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh — referred to regarding ordinary and commonly understood meaning of an expression relating to food articles.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Patel Stores, having IEC No. CQLPP4918I1 (hereinafter referred as “The Applicant”) filed an application for advance ruling in the Office of Secretary, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai. The said application was received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 29.07.2026, along with its enclosures in terms of Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). The applicant is seeking advance ruling regarding classification of Roasted Areca nuts, Roasted Pistachios, Roasted Almond Nuts and Roasted Cashew Nuts for imports through the port of Nhava Sheva.
2. Facts submitted by the Applicant:
The applicant is a proprietorship firm concern involved in the business of trading. The applicant is also registered under the GST bearing registration no. 24CQLPP4918H1ZJ. The applicant is intending to import of following goods from the Nhava Sheva Port:
a) Oven Roasted Areca nuts from Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia.
b) Oven Roasted Pistachios from Iran, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam.
c) Oven Roasted Almond nuts from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam.
d) Oven Roasted Cashew nuts from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia.
2.1 The applicant is of the bonafide belief that the subject goods are rightly classifiable under CTH sub heading 2008 19 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended. Therefore, the present application is being filed to ascertain the correct classification and eligibility of Notification benefit for the following subject goods:
| Sl. No. | Subject Goods | Proposed Classification | Proposed Eligibility of Notification Benefit |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oven Roasted Areca Nuts | 2008 19 91 | Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 when imported from Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and Cambodia |
| 2 | Oven Roasted Pistachios | 2008 19 91 | Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 when imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam |
| 3 | Oven Roasted Almond Nut | 2008 19 91 | Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 when imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam |
| 4 | Oven Roasted Cashew nuts | 2008 19 10 | Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 when imported from Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam |
3. Grounds submitted by the Applicant:
3.1 The applicant intends to import a) Oven Roasted Areca nuts from Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia; b) Oven Roasted Pistachios from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam; c) Oven Roasted Almond nuts from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam and d) Oven Roasted Cashew nuts from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia.
3.2 Oven Roasted Areca Nuts to be imported from Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia
3.2.1 As per the applicant, the process of “roasting” is neither defined under the Customs Tariff Act nor specifically referred to in the HSN Explanatory Notes or the relevant Section/Chapter Notes. The applicant has submitted that the following processes are carried out on the subject goods:
(i) De-husking the raw betel/areca nuts and drying the same before being fed into the roasting oven;
(ii) Feeding the fresh areca nuts into a seed roasting oven, heating up to 100 deg. and roasting the fresh areca nuts in an oven of the seed roasting machine;
(iii) Take the areca nuts out of the oven, cooling at room temperature and feeding back into the oven, heat and roast them again, and perform this cycle until the water content of the fresh areca nuts is 10 to 15 per cent; and
(iv) The fresh areca nuts are repeatedly heated, roasted and cooled to ensure that the areca nuts are quickly cooled and shrunk after thermal expansion so that the roasted areca nuts have higher quality; the roasting time is around 2-3 days.
(v) The applicant has submitted that, after roasting, the moisture content of the subject Areca Nuts is reduced to below 10%, as mentioned in the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.A. Nos. 3647 and 3648 of 2024 and C.M.P. Nos. 28679 and 28696 of 2024. The applicant has further submitted that the said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 17655-17656 of 2025.
3.2.2 In this regard, the applicant has submitted that the advance ruling is sought on the basis of the nature and composition of the product proposed to be imported. It has been contended that whether the goods actually imported conform to the stated nature and composition can always be verified and tested upon their arrival in India. The applicant has further submitted that the process carried out on the subject goods has been explained above and that the details furnished are sufficient for the Authority to arrive at a conclusion regarding the classification of the product.
3.2.3 The applicant has submitted that it is of utmost importance to place on record that the applicant proposes to classify the roasted Areca Nuts under CTH 2008 19 91, which covers “Other roasted nuts and seeds”. In this regard, the applicant has submitted that the tariff entry “Other roasted nuts and seeds” was initially classified under CTH 2008 19 20, as reproduced below:
| Tariff Heading | Description |
|---|---|
| 2008 | Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included |
| 2008 19 | Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together |
| 2008 19 20 | Other roasted nuts and seeds |
| However, vide Section 103 of the Finance Act, 2025, for the tariff items 2008 19 20 to 2008 19 90 and the entries relating thereto, the following were substituted: | |
| — — Makhana: | |
| 2008 19 21 | Popped |
| 2008 19 22 | Flour and powder |
| 2008 19 29 | Other |
| — Other: | |
| 2008 19 91 | Other roasted nuts and seeds |
| 2008 19 92 | Other nuts, otherwise prepared or preserved |
| 2008 19 93 | Other roasted and fried vegetable products |
| 2008 79 99 | Other |
From the above, it is evident that, pursuant to the amendment to the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the tariff entry “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, which was earlier classified under CTH 2008 19 20, is now classified under CTH 2008 19 91, without any change in the essential description of the goods.
3.2.4 Further, the applicant has submitted that Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011 covers tariff headings 2007 10 to 2008 20. Accordingly, the applicant has contended that, notwithstanding the substitution of CTH 2008 19 20, the corresponding substituted tariff item, i.e. CTH 2008 19 91, continues to fall within the scope of Sl. No. 172 of the said notification. The applicant has, therefore, submitted that roasted Areca Nuts imported from Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia are eligible for the applicable benefit under the said notification.
3.2.5 The applicant has submitted that the roasted Areca Nuts are specifically covered under and are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which was earlier covered under CTH 2008 19 20. The applicant has further submitted that, as per the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008, dry roasted Areca (or betel) Nuts are specifically covered under the said Heading. In support of its contention, the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L.M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) and Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), to submit that the HSN Explanatory Notes constitute a safe and dependable guide for the purpose of classification of goods. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Business Forms Ltd. reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.), wherein, according to the applicant, due consideration was required to be given to the HSN Explanatory Notes while classifying goods.
3.2.6. The applicant has submitted the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008, as published by the World Customs Organization (WCO), which are reproduced below.
“This heading covers fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter.
It includes, inter alia:
(1) Almonds, ground-nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.”
The above words are crystal clear that nuts which are dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives are included/covered under the Chapter 2008. It is further submitted that the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 20.08 does not state any particular packaging methods required to classify the subject goods under Chapter 2008. Rather the Explanatory Notes only vaguely states that the products of Chapter 20.08 are “generally put up in cans, jars or airtight containers, or in casks, barrels or similar containers”. It is submitted that since there is no specific packaging method required for the subject goods, they are rightly classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 (previously classified under CTH 2008 19 20) which provides a more complete or precise description of the goods.
3.2.7 The applicant has further submitted that Chapter 21 also covers other Betel nut product known as Supari whereas the subject goods are “roasted areca nuts”. As per Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, “betel nut product known as Supari means any preparation containing betel nuts, but not containing any one or more of the following ingredients, namely: lime, Katha (catechu) and tobacco whether or not containing any other ingredients, such as cardamom, copra or menthol.” As per the Explanatory Note, the heading covers preparations for use, either directly or after processing (such as cooking, dissolving or boiling in water, milk, etc.), for human consumption. As per the applicant, the goods have undergone roasting, but they do not contain lime, Katha (catechu) and tobacco. Roasted betel nuts can be consumed directly by merely cutting them into pieces. Therefore, the goods seem equally classifiable under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It is made clear that Supari and roasted areca nuts differ significantly in their processing and classification. Supari in general involves extensive processing, such as boiling, drying and mixing with various additives like sweeteners, spices and sometimes even silver coating, making it a complex product specifically classified under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff as a miscellaneous edible preparation. In contrast, roasted areca nuts are simply roasted and thereby preserved, without any additional ingredients or complex processing, which aligns them with Chapter 2008, specifically covering nuts that are otherwise prepared or preserved. Thus, while supari is a more elaborately processed product, roasted areca nuts are simply roasted and, owing to their distinct classification, Chapter 2008 explicitly includes nuts that are roasted, making it the appropriate and specific classification for roasted areca nuts.
3.2.8 Further submitted that, Chapter 8 covers fruit, nuts and peel of citrus fruit or melons (including watermelons), generally intended for human consumption (whether as presented or after processing). As per HSN explanatory notes the goods may be fresh (including chilled), frozen (whether or not previously cooked by steaming or boiling in water or containing added sweetening matter) or dried (including dehydrated, evaporated or freeze-dried); provided they are unsuitable for immediate consumption in that state, they may be provisionally preserved (e.g. by sulphur dioxide gas, in brine, in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions). The note specifies the physical status of the goods along with corresponding processes that could be carried on those goods under this chapter. Note 3 to Chapter 8 further states that dried fruit or dried nuts of this Chapter may be partially rehydrated, or treated for the following purposes:
(a) for additional preservation or stabilization (for example, by moderate heat treatment, sulphuring, the addition of sorbic acid or potassium sorbate);
(b) to improve or maintain their appearance (for example, by the addition of vegetable oil or small quantities of glucose syrup), provided that they retain the character of dried fruit or dried nuts.
3.2.9 The areca/betel nut is mentioned in Heading 0802, specifically under sub-heading 0802 80. The explanatory note to Heading 0802 states that this heading also covers areca (betel) nuts used chiefly as a masticatory. One of the main uses of the goods under consideration is masticatory. Therefore, the subject goods satisfy this note. However, the process of roasting is not finding mention anywhere in this Explanatory Note.
3.2.10 The processes mentioned in Chapter 8 include chilling, steaming, boiling, drying and provisionally preserving. It does not specifically include the process of roasting. Here it is important to understand the difference between the processes of drying and roasting. The terms, however, are not defined in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, these terms have to be understood in a commonly accepted sense. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported 1978 AIR 945 held that “the commonly accepted sense of a term should prevail in construing the description of an article of food”. In common trade parlance, “drying” is a method of food preservation by the removal of water. On the other hand, “roasting” means the excess or very high heat treatment that produces fundamental chemical and physical changes in the structure and composition of the goods, bringing about a charred physical appearance. Therefore, drying is a moisture removal process involving methods such as dehydration, evaporation, etc., whereas roasting is a severe heat treatment process.
3.2.11 The following CTH can be found to be specifically mentioned in the Tariff:
| Tariff Item | Description |
|---|---|
| 2008 | Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included. |
| — | Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together, |
| 2008 19 | Other, including mixtures |
| 2008 19 91 | Other roasted nuts and seeds. |
While examining the scope of CTH 2008 it is found that as per HSN Explanatory Notes, heading 2008 covers fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter. Specifying what is included in this heading, the explanatory note states that Almonds, ground nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives. From the foregoing it can be seen that the subject goods find specific reference in the chapter 20 of the schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well as corresponding HSN Explanatory Note.
3.2.12 The applicant further submitted that on various online marketplaces like https://www.amazon.in, https://indiamart.com, https://flipkart.com etc., roasted betel nuts as products are sold. This clearly indicates that the goods have both buyers and sellers and that they are known in the trade and sold in the market as roasted betel nuts. Therefore, assuming without admitting, even if the term is not defined in the statute, the product has to be understood and recognized in terms of common trade parlance. It is a well settled principle that words in a taxing statute must be construed in consonance with their commonly accepted meaning in the trade and their popular meaning. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s. United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Others reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 568 (S.C.), “If there is no meaning attributed to the expressions used in the particular enacted statute then the items in the customs entries should be judged and analysed on the basis of how these expressions are used in the trade or industry or in the market or, in other words, how these are dealt with by the people who deal in them, provided that there is a market for these types of goods”.
3.2.13 Chapter 20 covers the preparation of nuts. One of the processes for preparing the impugned goods is specified in Heading 2008, i.e. roasting. Roasting is the essential process for the preparation of subject goods. The subject goods under consideration are not excluded by any chapter note or explanatory note from Heading 2008. Therefore, it is evident that the subject goods are classifiable under Heading 2008 based on the terms of the Heading 2008 and Notes to Chapter 20.
3.2.14 It is submitted that for identical products namely Roasted Areca Nuts, the CAAR, Mumbai vide Ruling Nos. CAAR/MUM/ARC/44, 45 & 46/2022 dated 07.12.2022 which has also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras as reported in 2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad), vide Ruling Nos. CAAR/Mum/ARC/39, 40, 41/2023 dated 12.05.2023 and vide Ruling No. CAAR/MUM/ARC/67/2022 dated 16.10.2023 had held that the product is classifiable under CTH 2008 19 20. The said ruling is applicable to the present case also, as the Roasted Areca Nuts are same as the product that was under consideration before the Hon’ble Authority in the above-mentioned Rulings.
3.2.15 The applicant has submitted that, in addition to the aforesaid precedents, the following advance rulings have also held that roasted Areca Nuts are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 20, which has subsequently been substituted by CTH 2008 19 91:
i. Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/89/Mumbai dated 06.06.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority Mumbai, in In re: TMK Traders;
ii. Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Devsar/73/2024/1590-1596 dated 01.11.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority, Delhi, in In re: Devsar Traders;
iii. Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Saga/60/2024 dated 30.09.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority, Delhi, in In re: Sage International;
iv. Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Exim/30/2024/1028 dated 05.07.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority, Delhi, in In re: Exim Incorporation;
v. Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Prenda/29/2024/1017-1021 dated 28.06.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority, Delhi, in In re: Prenda Creations Pvt. Ltd.;
vi. Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Perfect/1/2024/639 dated 05.01.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority, Delhi, in In re: Perfect Trading Co.; and
vii. Ruling No. CAAR/Del/Rawder/55/2024 dated 19.09.2024, passed by the Hon’ble Authority, Delhi, in In re: Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd.
3.2.16 The applicant has further submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III v. Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2023 (9) Centax 183 (Mad.), considered the issue of classification of Areca Nuts and examined, inter alia, the relevance of the HSN Explanatory Notes and the Common Parlance Test. The applicant has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court examined the competing tariff entries under Chapters 8, 20 and 21 and observed that CTH 2008 19 20 specifically covered roasted nuts, including Areca Nuts, as against the general entry covering nuts under CTH 0802.
The applicant has further relied upon the following observations of the Hon’ble High Court:
16. To sum up
(a) Roasting is a process treated to be distinct from the process of boiling and drying, in fixing the classification in respect of betel/areca nut under CTH.
(b) Roasted betel/areca nut having been specifically classified under CTH 2008 19 20, the attempt to classify under CTH 08 02 80 would fall foul of the settled rule of construction that specific entry would prevail over general entry.
(c) HSN Explanatory Notes is normally a safe guide in determining classification under CTH. Roasted areca/betel nut having been mentioned in CTH 2008 19 20 under HSN, the impugned Ruling is in consonance with HSN classification.
(d) When there is a specific entry covering a product/commodity, the test of common parlance is irrelevant in determining classification.
On the basis of the above judgment and the aforesaid advance rulings, the applicant has submitted that CTH 2008 19 20 was a specific tariff entry covering roasted nuts, including roasted Areca Nuts, and that the subject goods are accordingly classifiable under the corresponding substituted tariff item, i.e. CTH 2008 19 91.
3.3 Oven Roasted Pista Nuts Imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam:
3.3.1 The applicant submitted that the process carried out on the imported goods includes the following steps:
Preheat the oven to 330 degrees, line a rimmed baking sheet with parchment paper or foil for easy clean-up, add pista nuts in a single layer, and roast for 10-15 minutes. Due to their high oil content, they will continue to roast after removing the pistachios from the oven.
3.3.2 The Applicant has submitted that the subject goods, namely roasted pistachios, are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91. It has been submitted that, prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2025, the relevant tariff entry for roasted nuts and seeds was CTH 2008 19 20, which read as under:
| Tariff Item | Description |
|---|---|
| 2008 | Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included. |
| — | Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together, |
| 2008 19 | Other, including mixtures |
| 2008 19 91 | Other roasted nuts and seeds. |
3.3.3 It has therefore been contended that the amendment merely restructured the tariff sub-classification under CTH 2008 19 and that the specific description “Other roasted nuts and seeds” which was earlier covered under CTH 2008 19 20, has subsequently been retained under CTH 2008 19 91. According to the Applicant, there has been no change in the essential description of the goods covered by the said entry. On this basis, the Applicant has submitted that roasted pistachios continue to fall within the scope of the tariff entry covering “Other roasted nuts and seeds” and are therefore classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91.
3.3.4 The Applicant has further submitted that Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 covers, inter alia, goods falling under the relevant tariff headings within the range specified therein. Accordingly, it has been contended that the substitution of CTH 2008 19 20 by CTH 2008 19 91 does not, by itself, disentitle the subject goods from the benefit of the said notification, provided that the substituted tariff item falls within the tariff entries covered by the notification and all other prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Accordingly, the Applicant has claimed that the subject roasted pistachios imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein.
3.3.5 The Applicant has submitted that the preparation process undertaken in respect of the subject goods, which includes preheating, lining of the baking sheet and roasting, transforms the raw pistachios into a form that falls within the description of “otherwise prepared or preserved” nuts. It has therefore been contended that the subject goods are appropriately covered under Heading 2008.
3.3.6 The Applicant has submitted that Chapter 08 of the Customs Tariff primarily covers edible fruit and nuts, including those which are fresh or dried. According to the Applicant, the subject goods have undergone the process of roasting and, therefore, are no longer merely fresh or dried nuts. It has consequently been contended that classification of the roasted pistachios under Chapter 08 would not be appropriate.
3.3.7 The Applicant has further relied upon Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff, which provides that where two or more headings appear to merit consideration, the heading providing the more specific description of the goods is to be preferred over a heading providing a more general description. In this regard, the Applicant has contended that CTH 2008 19 91, which specifically covers “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, provides a more precise description of the subject goods than the general entries covering nuts under Chapter 08. Accordingly, the Applicant has submitted that the subject roasted pistachios merit classification under CTH 2008 19 91.
3.3.8 The Applicant has also relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 20.08, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced as under:
“This heading covers fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter.
It includes, inter alia:
(1) Almonds, ground-nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.”
According to the Applicant, the above Explanatory Note expressly recognises dry-roasted, oil-roasted and fat-roasted nuts as falling within the scope of Heading 20.08, irrespective of whether such nuts contain or are coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives. The Applicant has therefore contended that roasted pistachios are specifically covered under Heading 2008.
3.3.9 In view of the above submissions, the Applicant has claimed that the subject goods, being roasted pistachios, are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91, corresponding to the erstwhile CTH 2008 19 20. The Applicant has further submitted that roasted pistachios imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein.
3.4 Oven Roasted Almond Nuts Imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam:
3.4.1 The applicant submitted that the process carried out on the imported goods includes the following steps:
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees, line a rimmed baking sheet with parchment paper or foil for easy cleanup, add almonds in a single layer, and roast for 10-15 minutes.
3.4.2 The Applicant has submitted that the subject goods, namely roasted almond nuts, are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91. It has been submitted that, prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2025, the relevant tariff entry for roasted nuts and seeds was CTH 2008 19 20, which read as under:
2008 — Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included.
— Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together:
2008 19 — Other, including mixtures
2008 19 20 — Other roasted nuts and seeds
The Applicant has further submitted that, vide Section 103 of the Finance Act, 2025, the relevant tariff entries under CTH 2008 19 were substituted. Consequently, the erstwhile entry CTH 2008 19 20 — “Other roasted nuts and seeds” was replaced by CTH 2008 19 91 — “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, along with other newly created tariff items. The relevant entries, as relied upon by the Applicant, are as follows:
2008 19 21 — Popped
2008 19 22 — Flour and powder
2008 19 29 — Other
2008 19 91 — Other roasted nuts and seeds
2008 19 92 — Other nuts, otherwise prepared or preserved
2008 19 93 — Other roasted and fried vegetable products
2008 19 99 — Other
3.4.3 It has therefore been contended that the amendment merely restructured the tariff sub-classification under CTH 2008 19 and that the specific description “Other roasted nuts and seeds” which was earlier covered under CTH 2008 19 20, has subsequently been retained under CTH 2008 19 91. According to the Applicant, there has been no change in the essential description of the goods covered by the said entry. On this basis, the Applicant has submitted that roasted Almond nuts continue to fall within the scope of the tariff entry covering “Other roasted nuts and seeds” and are therefore classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91.
3.4.4 The Applicant has further submitted that Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 covers, inter alia, goods falling under the relevant tariff headings within the range specified therein. Accordingly, it has been contended that the substitution of CTH 2008 19 20 by CTH 2008 19 91 does not, by itself, disentitle the subject goods from the benefit of the said notification, provided that the substituted tariff item falls within the tariff entries covered by the notification and all other prescribed conditions are fulfilled. Accordingly, the Applicant has claimed that roasted Almond nuts are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein.
3.4.5 The Applicant has submitted that the preparation process undertaken in respect of the subject goods includes preheating, lining of the baking sheet and roasting.
3.4.6 The Applicant has submitted that Chapter 08 of the Customs Tariff primarily covers edible fruit and nuts, including those which are fresh or dried. According to the Applicant, the subject goods have undergone the process of roasting and, therefore, are no longer merely fresh or dried nuts. It has consequently been contended that classification of the roasted almond nuts under Chapter 08 would not be appropriate.
3.4.7 The Applicant has further relied upon Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff, which provides that where two or more headings appear to merit consideration, the heading providing the more specific description of the goods is to be preferred over a heading providing a more general description. In this regard, the Applicant has contended that CTH 2008 19 91, which specifically covers “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, provides a more precise description of the subject goods than the general entries covering nuts under Chapter 08. Accordingly, the Applicant has submitted that the subject roasted almond nuts merit classification under CTH 2008 19 91.
3.4.8 The Applicant has also relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 20.08, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced as under:
“This heading covers fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter.
It includes, inter alia:
(1) Almonds, ground-nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.”
According to the Applicant, the above Explanatory Note expressly recognises dry-roasted, oil-roasted and fat-roasted nuts as falling within the scope of Heading 20.08, irrespective of whether such nuts contain or are coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives. The Applicant has therefore contended that roasted almond nuts are specifically covered under Heading 2008.
In view of the above submissions, the Applicant has claimed that the subject goods, being roasted almond nuts, are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91, corresponding to the erstwhile CTH 2008 19 20. The Applicant has further submitted that roasted pistachios imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein.
3.5 Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts Imported from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia:
3.5.1 The applicant has submitted that the process carried out on the subject goods includes the Preheat the oven to 350 degrees, line a rimmed baking sheet with parchment paper or foil for easy cleanup, add cashews in a single layer, and roast for 10-15 minutes. As per the applicant, the applicable subheading for roasted cashew nuts will be CTH 2008 19 10, which provides for:
2008 Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included.
— Nuts, groundnuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together
2008 19 — Other, including mixtures:
2008 19 10 — Cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted.
and The Roasted cashew nuts imported from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia are eligible to avail the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011.
3.5.2 The Applicant has submitted that the preparation process undertaken in respect of the subject goods, namely preheating, lining of the baking sheet and roasting, transforms the raw cashews into a form that falls within the description of “otherwise prepared or preserved” nuts. It has therefore been contended that the subject goods are appropriately covered under Heading 2008, which encompasses fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, and not elsewhere specified or included. The Applicant has further submitted that classification under CTH 2008 19 10 is appropriate as roasted cashew nuts are specifically covered by the said tariff entry.
3.5.3 The Applicant has submitted that Chapter 08 of the Customs Tariff covers edible fruits and nuts, including those which are fresh or dried. It has been contended that the subject goods have undergone the process of roasting and are therefore no longer in the form of fresh or merely dried nuts. Accordingly, the Applicant has submitted that classification of the subject roasted cashew nuts under Chapter 08 would not be appropriate.
3.5.4 The Applicant has further submitted that classification of the subject goods under CTH 2008 19 10 is supported by Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff, which provides that where two or more headings are prima facie applicable, the heading providing the more specific description of the goods is to be preferred over a more general description. In the present case, the Applicant has contended that CTH 2008 19 10, specifically covering roasted cashew nuts, provides a more precise description of the subject goods than the general entries covering nuts under Chapter 08.
3.5.5 The Applicant has also relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 20.08, published by the World Customs Organization, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced as under:
“This heading covers fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter.
It includes, inter alia:
(1) Almonds, ground-nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.”
The Applicant has submitted that the above Explanatory Note specifically recognises dry-roasted, oil-roasted and fat-roasted nuts as falling within the scope of Heading 20.08, irrespective of whether such nuts contain or are coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives. On this basis, it has been contended that roasted cashew nuts are specifically covered under Heading 2008.
3.5.6 The Applicant has further relied upon the decision of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai, in Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/89/Mumbai, In re: TMK Traders, reported in 2024 (19) Centax 487 (AAR-Cus.-Mum), wherein, according to the Applicant, the product “Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts” was held classifiable under CTH 2008, specifically under CTH 2008 19 10 of Chapter 20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
3.5.7 The Applicant has further submitted that, in respect of identical goods, namely roasted cashew nuts, the Authority for Advance Ruling, Kerala, in Ruling Nos. KER/12003-KER/113/2021 and KER/15/2021, all dated 26.05.2021, held the product to be classifiable under CTH 2008 19 10. It has been contended that these rulings support the proposition that roasted cashew nuts fall under the aforesaid tariff entry. The Applicant has additionally relied upon United States Customs rulings NY N381459 dated 20.09.2000 and NY 183434 dated 12.07.2000, wherein, according to the Applicant, similar roasted cashew products were classified under the corresponding tariff provision covering roasted nuts. The Applicant has submitted that the consistency of classification adopted by different customs authorities in respect of roasted cashew nuts further supports classification of the subject goods under CTH 2008 19 10.
3.5.8 In view of the above submissions, the Applicant has claimed that the subject roasted cashew nuts are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 10 and that, when imported from Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam, they are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein.
3.5.9 Accordingly, the Applicant has prayed that the Authority may pass its ruling on the following questions:
(a) Whether roasted areca nuts are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and whether they are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011 when imported from Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia.
(b) Whether roasted pistachios are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and whether they are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011 when imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam.
(c) Whether roasted almonds are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and whether they are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011, when imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam.
(d) Whether roasted cashew nuts are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 10 and whether they are eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011, when imported from Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Vietnam.
6. Port of Import and reply from Jurisdictional Commissionerate
In terms of provisions of the Section 28-I(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sub-Regulation no. (2) 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, NS, JNCH, NHAVA SHEVA calling upon them to furnish the relevant records with comments, if any, in respect of said application on 29.07.2026. However, no reply has been received from Jurisdictional Commissionerate till date.
7. Records of Personal Hearing
A personal hearing in the matter was granted to the Applicant on 20.08.2026. The Applicant’s authorised representative appeared on the scheduled date and reiterated the submissions and contentions made in the written submissions regarding the classification of the goods covered by the application. The representative submitted that the issue of classification of roasted areca nuts stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and contended that the same classification should be adopted in respect of the other roasted nuts covered by the present application.
7.1 No representative from the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate appeared for the personal hearing.
8. Additional Submissions by the Applicant
8.1 Subsequent to the personal hearing held on 20.08.2026, during which a query was raised regarding the precise process of roasting and the moisture content of the subject Roasted Areca Nuts, the Applicant submitted additional written submissions in this regard.
8.1.1 The Applicant requested that, after sub-paragraphs 1 and 5 of Para B(e) of Annexure-II (Grounds) to the application, sub-paragraphs 1.1 and 6 be treated as additional submissions explaining the process of roasting of the subject nuts. The relevant submissions of the Applicant are reproduced below:
“1.1. Drying of freshly dehusked raw betel/Areca Nut is thereby subjected dry or boiled dry to get it stabilised, say for 3 hours, before feeding the same into the Roasting Oven.
6. As per the requirement of the Indian market and our customer demand, we bring the moisture content down by continuing roasting at a controlled temperature of 90°C for another twelve hours till the moisture content comes to 6%.”
8.1.2 The prolonged roasting is done diligently at controlled temperature to avoid charring, i.e. to prevent the nuts from burning, blackening or becoming carbonized due to excessive heat. Thereafter the nuts are suddenly brought under controlled temperature to 25°C. The warm Areca Nuts are then spread on bamboo mat with forced-fan cooling for six hours, which limits Maillard reaction/caramelization of the nuts and thereby limits surface browning.
8.1.3 After completion of the above process and at approximately 6% moisture content, the Roasted Areca Nut becomes brittle, nutty and crunchy in terms of its organoleptic characteristics.
8.1.4 It is further submitted that Roasted Areca Nuts, being very sensitive to environmental conditions, may absorb moisture or lose moisture upon exposure to humid or dry conditions, respectively. Accordingly, a moisture tolerance of 6% ± 1% is anticipated.
8.2 Further, in response to this office mail dated 03.09.2026, whereby M/s Patel Stores was requested to clarify whether the proposed imports were intended to be undertaken through Chennai Port or Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, the Applicant, vide email dated 07.09.2026, submitted as under:
“With reference to our Application and Form CAAR-1, the Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs from where the proposed import/export is to be undertaken has been mentioned as ‘Commissioner of Customs, NS-1, JNCH, Nhava Sheva’ as the port of import.
However, in Annexure I (Facts), Para 1, it has inadvertently been mentioned that the goods are to be imported through Chennai Port. This is a typographical error.
The port of import may, therefore, be corrected to JNCH, Nhava Sheva, and ‘Chennai Port’ may be replaced by ‘JNCH, Nhava Sheva’ in Para 1 of Annexure I (Facts).”
9. DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
9.1 I have taken into consideration all the materials placed on record in respect of the subject goods. I have carefully gone through the submissions made by the Applicant, the relevant statutory provisions, the applicable tariff entries, the HSN Explanatory Notes, the judicial pronouncements and other material available on record. I, therefore, proceed to pronounce the ruling on the basis of the information available on record and the legal framework applicable to the subject goods.
9.2 The Applicant has sought advance ruling in respect of the following questions:
1. Whether Oven Roasted Areca Nuts are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and whether the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011 is applicable when imported from Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia?
2. Whether Oven Roasted Pistachios are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and whether the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 is applicable when imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam?
3. Whether Oven Roasted Almonds are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 and whether the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011 is applicable when imported from Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam?
4. Whether Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts are classifiable under CTH 2008 19 10 and whether the benefit of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011 is applicable when imported from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Malaysia?
9.3 At the outset, I find that the questions raised in Form CAAR-1 relate to determination of classification of the subject goods and the applicability of a notification issued under the Customs Act, 1962 having a bearing on the rate of duty. Accordingly, the questions fall within the scope of matters in respect of which an advance ruling may be sought under Section 28H(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
9.4 I now proceed to examine the classification of the subject goods, namely, Roasted Areca Nuts, Roasted Cashew Nuts, Roasted Almonds and Roasted Pistachios. The classification of each category of goods is required to be examined having regard to the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including the applicable Section and Chapter Notes, the HSN Explanatory Notes, the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff and the relevant judicial pronouncements.
9.5. Roasted Areca Nuts
9.5.1 As regards the classification of Roasted Areca Nuts, it is pertinent to note that the issue relating to classification of roasted betel nuts/areca nuts has already been considered in earlier advance rulings and has also been examined by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in its judgment dated 01.08.2023 in C.M.A. Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023, in The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-III Commissionerate v. M/s. Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Nena Enterprises and M/s. Universal Impex, dismissed the appeals filed by the Department and thereby affirmed the classification adopted in the concerned advance rulings in respect of roasted betel nuts/areca nuts under CTH 2008 19 20, which tariff item was subsequently substituted by CTH 2008 19 91. The Court, inter alia, recognized roasting as a process distinct from drying and held that the specific entry covering roasted nuts prevailed over the general entry for areca nuts.
9.5.2 I further observe that this Authority as well as the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Delhi, have dealt with applications concerning classification of Roasted Areca Nuts proposed to be imported through different ports/locations.
9.5.3 In the present application, the Applicant seeks a ruling on the same essential question, namely the classification of Roasted Areca Nuts under Heading 2008. The Applicant has not placed before me any materially distinguishing facts or circumstances which would warrant a fresh examination of the same classification issue in the present proceedings.
9.5.4 Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 specifies the circumstances in which an application for advance ruling is not to be admitted. Having regard to the judicial pronouncements already rendered on the same classification issue and the absence of any materially distinguishing facts in the present application, I am of the view that a fresh ruling on the classification of Roasted Areca Nuts is not warranted.
9.5.5 Accordingly, for the reasons recorded above and in view of the provisions of Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, no ruling is pronounced on the question relating to classification of Roasted Areca Nuts in the present application.
9.6 Roasted Cashew Nuts, Roasted Almonds and Roasted Pistachios
9.6.1 As regards Roasted Cashew Nuts, Roasted Almonds and Roasted Pistachios (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the subject roasted nuts”), I find from the submissions and material placed on record that the subject goods are described as “roasted” and are stated to undergo a roasting process. The Applicant has submitted that the oven is preheated to 350°F, after which the subject nuts are placed in a single layer and roasted for 10-15 minutes. Thus, the Applicant has furnished particulars regarding the temperature and duration of the heating process. However, the Applicant has not furnished comprehensive technical particulars or independent test evidence establishing the precise changes brought about in the goods by the said process, including changes, if any, in moisture content, colour, texture, flavour or taste. Accordingly, the classification is required to be determined on the basis of the nature of the goods, the process disclosed by the Applicant and the material actually placed on record.
9.6.2 It is pertinent to note that roasting and drying, though both involve the application of heat, are distinct processes. Drying is primarily directed towards the removal or reduction of moisture, whereas roasting involves heat treatment of food articles in a manner that produces the characteristics ordinarily associated with roasted products. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 does not specifically define the expression “roasted”. Therefore, the expression is required to be understood in its ordinary and commercial sense, having regard to the nature of the goods and the process actually undertaken.
9.6.3 The Customs Tariff contains specific tariff entries covering roasted nuts. The relevant portion of Heading 2008 reads as follows:
2008 — Fruit, Nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included.
— Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together:
2008 11 00 — Ground-nuts
2008 19 — Other, including mixtures:
2008 19 10 — Cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted
2008 19 21 — Popped [Makhana]
2008 19 22 — Flour and Powder [Makhana]
2008 19 29 — Other [Makhana]
2008 19 91 — Other roasted nuts and seeds
2008 19 92 — Other nuts, otherwise prepared or preserved
2008 19 93 — Other roasted and fried vegetable products
2008 19 99 — Other
It is thus evident from the tariff structure that roasted cashew nuts are specifically covered under CTH 2008 19 10, whereas other roasted nuts and seeds are covered under CTH 2008 19 91.
9.6.4 The classification of goods under the Customs Tariff is governed by the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Import Tariff (GRI) set out in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Rule 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the remaining Rules of the GRI. The Section Notes and Chapter Notes therefore form an integral part of the statutory tariff scheme and are required to be considered while determining the appropriate classification.
9.6.5 The principle that a specific tariff entry is to be preferred over a general or residuary entry is also well settled. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd., 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a residuary entry can be resorted to only in the absence of a specific entry covering the goods. Similarly, in Western India Plywoods Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, 2005 (188) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that resort to a residuary entry is to be made with extreme caution and only when no other provision expressly or by necessary implication applies to the goods. Accordingly, where the tariff specifically provides for the goods, classification under a general or residuary entry is not warranted.
9.6.6 The Customs Tariff is aligned with the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), and the HSN Explanatory Notes, though not statutory in character, constitute a recognized aid to the interpretation of tariff headings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), held that the HSN is a safe guide for interpreting expressions used in the Customs Tariff unless a different intention is indicated in the tariff itself. The same principle has also been recognized in CC v. Business Forms Ltd., 2002 (142) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.).
Heading 2008 covers: “Fruit, Nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included.”
The subject goods, being nuts and edible parts of plants, fall within the scope of Heading 2008, subject to determination of the appropriate sub-heading and tariff item.
The HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008 specifically include, inter alia:
“Almonds, ground-nuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.”
The above specifically recognizes roasted almonds and other roasted nuts as goods falling within Heading 2008.
9.6.7 It is further observed that the processes referred to in Chapter 8 include processes such as chilling, steaming, boiling, drying, and provisional preservation. Roasting, as such, is not specified amongst those processes. This distinction assumes significance in determining whether the goods remain merely dried nuts or have undergone a roasting process so as to fall within Heading 2008.
9.6.8 In the absence of a statutory definition of “roasted”, the expression is appropriately understood in its ordinary and commercial sense. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1978 AIR 945, has recognized the relevance of the commonly understood meaning of an expression used in relation to food articles.
9.6.9 In the present case, the Applicant has described the subject goods as Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts, Oven Roasted Almonds and Oven Roasted Pistachios and has stated that the goods are subjected to roasting in an oven at 350°F for 10-15 minutes. I find that the disclosed process involves application of heat to the nuts at a specified temperature for a specified duration and is consistent with the ordinary understanding of the term “roasting”. In the absence of any material on record to indicate that the process is merely a drying operation, the subject goods are appropriately considered as roasted nuts for the purpose of classification.
9.6.10 In respect of Oven Roasted Almonds and Oven Roasted Pistachios, there being no separate specific tariff entry for these goods, they are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91 — Other roasted nuts and seeds, in accordance with Rule 1 of the GRI and the terms of Heading 2008 and the relevant tariff sub-heading.
9.6.11 In respect of Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts, the Customs Tariff contains a specific tariff item namely CTH 2008 19 10 — Cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted. Accordingly, applying Rule 1 of the GRI and the principle that a specific tariff entry takes precedence over a general entry, Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts merit classification under CTH 2008 19 10.
10. Applicability of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus.
10.1 The Applicant has also sought a ruling regarding the applicability of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011. I find that the benefit of the said notification is subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein, including the applicable requirements relating to the originating status of the imported goods and the prescribed documentary evidence.
10.2 Accordingly, entitlement to the benefit of the said notification cannot be determined solely on the basis of classification. The same is required to be independently verified by the jurisdictional Customs authorities at the time of importation on the basis of the documents and evidence prescribed under the applicable legal framework, including the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020, wherever applicable.
11. Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, I reach the following conclusions in respect of the classification of the goods:
| Sr. No. | Product Description | Classification / Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Oven Roasted Areca Nuts | No ruling pronounced, for the reasons discussed in para 9.5 above |
| 2. | Oven Roasted Pistachios | CTH 2008 19 91 |
| 3. | Oven Roasted Almonds | CTH 2008 19 91 |
| 4. | Oven Roasted Cashew Nuts | CTH 2008 19 10 |
11.1 In respect of Oven Roasted Areca Nuts, no ruling is pronounced in the present application in view of the provisions of Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and for the reasons recorded in para 9.5 above. Accordingly, the present ruling shall not be construed as determining afresh the classification of Roasted Areca Nuts as it is already pronounced by Hon’ble High Court, Madras.
11.2 As regards the applicability of Sl. No. 172 of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus., dated 01.06.2011, the benefit shall be available only upon satisfaction of the jurisdictional Customs authorities that all the conditions prescribed under the said notification and the applicable rules of origin have been fulfilled including the requirements relating to the origin of the goods and production of the prescribed proof or certificate of origin, as applicable.
11.3 The present ruling is confined to determination of the classification of the subject goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the basis of the facts, documents and submissions placed on record. The jurisdictional Customs authorities shall, however, be at liberty to undertake such examination, sampling, testing and verification of the imported goods and relevant documents as may be considered necessary at the time of importation for ascertaining their conformity with this advance ruling and compliance with the applicable Acts, laws, rules and regulations.
12. Rule accordingly.
