Case Law Details
Isha Exim carrying on business Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that in absence of change in law/ facts, advance ruling pronounced by the authority shall be binding on the application and also on the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs and the customs authorities subordinate to him.
Facts- The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of import of various edible products, including products of betel nuts (processed supari). The petitioner has been importing various forms of supari, stated to be unflavored betel nuts (supari) and API betel nuts (supari). The petitioner is importing the said goods from only two suppliers. Such imports are received at Chennai and JNPT ports.
Based on the application, Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR) held that the goods sought to be imported, namely, ‘unflavoured supari’, ‘flavoured supari’, ‘API supari’, and ‘Chikni supari’, were being processed Betelnut products which do not contain specified ingredients, namely lime, kath, and tobacco, but containing other flavouring materials / additives are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 90 30.
The petitioner imported betel nuts from Indonesia at the Chennai port and classified them as ‘unflavoured supari’. These goods were assessed under the Custom Tariff Heading (CTH) 21069030 as ‘unflavoured supari’. However, the officer of DRI did not permit the cargo to be cleared on the ground that the petitioner has mis-classified the goods. The petitioner challenged the action by filing a writ petition before the Madras High Court, wherein, it was held that detention of cargo by the revenue was wholly unjustified.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
