Case Law Details
In re Vaibhav Enterprises (CAAR Delhi)
To answer the posed question, I consider the five goods, namely API supari, Chikni supari, unflavored supari, boiled supari and boiled & cut supari together. In these cases, one set of processes are found to be intended for cleaning; the second set for enhancing preservation; and third set for enhancing appearance or presentation, in addition to cutting. Addition of starch would be included under such process. I find that these processes are clearly covered by the Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 8 as well as the HSN. I find that in the instant case, betel nuts after being boiled are dried; and this fact per se would not exclude the end-products from the scope of “dried nuts”. Further, it is equally obvious to me that boiling or mere addition of certain additives for the limited purpose of enhancing preservation or appearance or ease of consumption per se does not result in obtaining a preparation of betel nut. Speaking more generally, in view of the design of the Schedule to the CTA, HSN and plethora of judgements, besides common understanding and parlance, every irreversible process does not result in obtaining a new product with a distinct classification even at the eight or ten-digit level; and every irreversible process does not result in coming into being of a “preparation of the raw material”. Therefore, 1 conclude that the processes to which raw betel nuts have been subjected to obtain API supari, Chikni supari, unflavored supari, boiled supari and boiled & cut supari are squarely in the nature of processes referred to in the Chapter Note 3 to Chapter 8 and HSN Note. Therefore, at the end of the said processes, the betel nuts retain the character of betel nut and do not qualify to be considered as “preparations” of betel nut, which is sine qua non for a good to be classifiable under Chapter 21.
In the case of flavored supari, the question to be answered is whether the addition of special flavoring agents would render the betel nuts into preparations of betel nuts, classifiable under Chapter 21. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon ‘ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Crane Betel Nut Powder Works and of the CESTAT, Chennai in the case of M/s Azam Laminators Pvt. Ltd. [where scented betel nut was being manufactured by cracking of dried betel nut into small pieces, and thereafter, gently heating it with addition of vanaspati oil, sweetening and flavoring agents and marketed in small pouches as Nizam Pakku (in Tamil)/Betel Nut (in English), the Hon’ble CESTAT held the resultant product classifiable under sub-heading 08029019 of Central Excise Tariff and not under 21069030 as supari for period after 07.07.2009] are relevant. Put simply, these decisions clearly imply that addition of flavoring agents do not change the character of the good, meaning in the present case betel nut would continue to remain betel nut and not become preparation of betel nut.
CAAR Held that that all the six goods placed before me for consideration, i.e., API supari, Chikni supari, boiled supari, boiled & cut supari, unflavored supari, and flavored supari, merit classification under Chapter 8 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, and more precisely, under the heading 0802. This is so in view of the fact that the processes to which raw green fresh betel nuts have been subjected to obtain the said six goods are squarely in the nature of processes mentioned in Note 3 to Chapter 8, and have not materially changed the essential character of betel nuts, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the M/s Crane Betel Nuts case. Further, the said six goods are not classifiable under sub-heading 2106 9030, as contended by the applicant, since they have not attained the character of “preparations” of betel nut, which is sine qua non for a good to be so considered.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
