Advance Ruling Rejected as preserved areca nuts Classification Issue Already Settled by HC

In re Vapa Overseas Private Limited (CAAR Delhi)

The applicant sought an advance ruling from the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), New Delhi, regarding the classification of “Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts (whole and split)” proposed to be imported into India. The applicant contended that the goods are chemically treated with preservatives such as Sulphur dioxide or sodium benzoate to prevent fungal growth and deterioration during storage and transport. According to the applicant, these treatments render the goods unsuitable for immediate human consumption in their imported condition. Since the preservatives can later be removed through simple processes such as washing or neutralization, the preservation was argued to be temporary and reversible. Based on Chapter Notes 3 and 4 of Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the applicant claimed that such goods should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 0812 90 90, which covers fruits and nuts provisionally preserved and unsuitable for immediate consumption.

The Customs authorities at various ports opposed this classification. They argued that areca nuts are specifically covered under CTH 0802 80, and that processes such as de-husking, splitting, drying, and chemical treatment do not alter the essential character of the goods. According to them, such treatments are standard preservation methods and do not meet the requirement of “provisional preservation” under CTH 0812. It was also submitted that the goods remain suitable for consumption after simple washing, thereby failing the condition of being unsuitable for immediate consumption. Authorities further contended that classification under CTH 0812 appeared to be an attempt to circumvent Minimum Import Price (MIP), higher tariff values, and import restrictions. Some authorities also noted that similar issues were already under consideration in judicial proceedings.

In response, the applicant argued that classification must be determined based on the condition of goods at the time of import, and not on their essential character or revenue considerations. It was emphasized that the statutory test under CTH 0812 is whether the goods are provisionally preserved and unsuitable for immediate consumption, which, according to the applicant, was satisfied in this case. The applicant also maintained that the Department’s reliance on factors such as MIP and duty implications was irrelevant for classification purposes.

Before examining the merits of classification, the Authority considered the maintainability of the application under Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. This provision bars admission of an application where the question raised is already pending or has been decided by an Appellate Tribunal or a Court. The Authority noted that the issue of classification of provisionally preserved areca nuts had already been decided by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in a judgment dated 26.03.2026, where such goods were classified under CTH 0802. The High Court had relied on earlier Supreme Court precedent in reaching this conclusion.

The Authority observed that the issue raised by the applicant was squarely covered by the said High Court judgment and that no material difference in facts or processing of the goods had been demonstrated. It emphasized that advance ruling authorities are bound by judicial precedents and cannot re-adjudicate issues already settled by higher judicial forums. Allowing such applications would lead to conflicting rulings and undermine the objective of certainty in tax administration.

Accordingly, applying the principle of judicial discipline and the statutory bar under Section 28-I(2), the Authority declined to entertain the application. The application was therefore rejected without giving a ruling on the merits of classification.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, DELHI

M/s Vapa Overseas Private Limited, 2204, 1st Floor, Gail Hinge Beg, Chandni Chowk, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi, India – 110006 (herein referred to as “applicant”), having IEC No. AAGCV1267M submitted seven applications dated 03.02.2026 before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (CAAR, New Delhi in short) for obtaining Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962, to seek clarity on the classification on the import of “Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts (whole) and Provisionally Preserved Areca Nut (Split)”to India. The application was accordingly registered under Serial No. 186-192/2025-26 dated 03.02.2026.

Statement of relevant facts having a bearing on the questions raised in this Application

1.1 The appellant intends to import the said goods mainly from Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, UAE, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Nepal& Singapore into India.

1.2 The applicant is approaching this Hon’ble Authority, seeking advance ruling qua the subject goods as mentioned in the following paras of this application as the applicant intends to import the same into India and hence would like to have a proper understanding and clarification as to whether the goods being imported shall be covered under a particular classification or the other.

1.3 That the nomenclature and details of the goods being sought to be imported by the applicant is Provisionally Preserved Areca Nut (Whole) and Provisionally Preserved Areca Nut (Split).

1.4 That Areca Nut is a tropical plant found all over South-East Asia. The tree belongs to the palm tree species and is from the Arecaceae family. The fruit (nut) of this tree is popularly known as betel nut or “supari” in India. The Areca nut is an important commercial plantation crop. The fruit has a fibrous mesocarp and seeds are with a truncate base, endosperm deeply ruminates with a basilar embryo. It is also known as “betel nut” which is the kernel obtained from the fruit of areca nut palm. It is mostly used by people as masticatory and is an essential requisite during several religious social and cultural functions in India.

1.5 That after harvesting, the tender nut is de-husked and then peeled. Thereafter, these are split and subjected to heat treatment and then dried. The process mentioned above can be mechanical or manually carried out. For preservation of the Senet’s and to protect them from fungi and Moulds and to prevent deterioration while in storage and for safe transportation, these are subjected to preservative treatment before packing and export to India by the exporter of the goods. The supplier of these nuts will treat them with Sulphur-di-oxide gas or sodium benzoate solution and provide analysis certificate and inspection report with regards to the treatments carried out. Thereafter, the nuts will be imported and cleared from customs.

1.6 That the preservatives can be removed before use of these nuts through simple processes. In case of preservation carried out with sodium benzoate solution, the nuts can be treated with sodium bi carbonate and when washed with plain water the excess benzoic acid will get removed. In the process by way of neutralization and after getting dissolved in water the benzoic acid gets removed.

1.7 That in cases where nut is treated with Sulphur-di-oxide, these can be treated with hydrogen peroxide by which the Sulphur-dioxide is oxidized to sulphate and during the process addition of sodium bi carbonate and water will remove the excess peroxides. Thus, after carrying out the above processes, the nut will become suitable for human consumption. With regards to the preservative treatment that are carried out on areca nuts, the Professor and Head of the Department of Food Process Engineering, College of Food and Dairy Technology, Koduveli, Chennai has issued a certificate clarifying the above. Thus, it can be seen that the preservative treatment in this case is provisional and temporary and the preservatives can be removed before consumption of the areca nut.

1.8 That the abovementioned goods “Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts” are specifically covered and are classifiable under CTH 081290 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Chapter 8 covers edible fruit and nuts, peels of citrus fruits or melons. Chapter note (3) to chapter 8 reads as follow-:

“3. Dried fruits or dried nuts of this Chapter may be partially rehydrated, or treated fir the following purposes: (a) for additional preservation or stabilization (for example, by moderate heal treatment, sulphating, the addition of sorbic acid or potassium sorbates) (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 17111″

1.9 Again, Chapter note (4) reads as follow:-

(a) Heading 0812 applies to fruit and nuts which have been treated solely to ensure their provisional preservation during transport or storage prior to use (Pr example, by Sulphur dioxide gas, in brine, in Sulphur water or in other preservative solutions), provided they remain unsuitable for immediate consumption in that state.”

1.10 That Heading 0812 covers fruits and nuts provisionally preserved but unsuitable in that state for immediate consumption. Following arc the four sub-headings under the above four-digit heading: –

1.11 That though areca nuts are separately mentioned under 0802, as nuts provisionally preserved but unsuitable in that state of immediate consumption, the areca nuts in the present ease will answer more precisely the description under heading 08 I 2which occurs later in the schedule and accordingly, the nuts that are provisionally preserved need to he classified under heading 0812 9090.

1.12 That the processes carried out on the raw betel nuts is mentioned herein under: –

i. After harvesting, the lender nut in de-husked and then peeled.

ii. These arc split and subjected to heat treatment and then dried.

iii. The process mentioned above can be mechanical or manually carried out

iv. For preservation of these nuts and to protect them from fungi and Moulds and to prevent deterioration while in storage and for safe transportation, these are subjected to preservative treatment before packing and export to India.

v. These nuts will be treated with Sulphur-di-oxide gas or sodium benzoate solution.

vi. Packaging in industrial packs of 25 kgs to 80kgs bags as per requirement.

vii. The supplier of the goods will provide analysis certificate and inspection report with regards to the treatments carried out.

viii. Thereafter, the nuts will be imported into India.

1.13 That the preservatives can be removed before use of these nuts through simple processes. In case of preservation carried out with sodium benzoate solution, the nuts can be treated with sodium bi­carbonate and when washed with plain water the excess benzoic acid will get removed. In the process, by way of neutralization and after getting dissolved in water the benzoic acid gets removed.

1.14 That in cases where nut is treated with Sulphur-di-oxide, these can be treated with hydrogen peroxide by which the Sulphur-dioxide is oxidized to sulphate and during the process addition of sodium bi-carbonate and water will remove the excess peroxides.

1.15 That in view of the above facts and legal provisions, the product “Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts (whole) and Provisionally Preserved Areca Nut (Split)” are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 0812 90 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975″.

1.16 That on the matter of interpretation of law of facts, the applicant most respectfully submits that as per their best knowledge and belief the items are classified under classification heading no. given in Custom Tariff heading 0812 9090. The said entry in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 reads as under:

1.17 Chapter 8 covers edible fruit and nuts, peels of citrus fruits or melons. Chapter note (3) to chapter 8 reads as follow-:

“3. Dried fruits 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, sulphating, 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 nut”

1.18 Again, Chapter note (4) reads as follow:-

(a) Heading 0812 applies to fruit and nuts which have been treated solely to ensure their provisional preservation during transport or storage prior to use (for example, by Sulphur dioxide gas, in brine, in Sulphur water or in other preservative solutions), provided they remain unsuitable for immediate consumption in that state.”

1.19 That in fact for similar product, the Hon’ble Authority of CAAR, Mumbai in Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/42/2023, dated 15-5- 2023 passed in the matter of M/s. Hi Tech Prints Systems, Chennai v. The Commissioner of Customs (Import), Tuticorin (2023) 12 Centax 40 (AAR. -Cus. ­Mum.)] Where identical goods are held classifiable under 0812 90 90 and in Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/26/2024, dated 22-2-2024, Hon’ble Authority has passed in the matter of M/s Radiance Enterprises, Chennai v. The Commissioner of Customs El (Import), Chennai and The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, where identical goods are held classifiable under 08129090. In view of above, the applicant would like to have advance ruling on the following issue:

“Whether the goods sought to be imported i.e., “Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts (whole) and Provisionally Preserved Areca Nut (Split)” are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 081290 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975″.

1.20 In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may kindly issue the advance ruling on classification of Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts (whole) and Provisionally Preserved Areca Nut (Split)” under CTH 0812 90 90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 at an early date under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962.

1.21 That in fact for the similar product, this Hon’ble Authority has already issued Ruling thereby declaring the above said goods 6. falls under CTH 21 and not CTH 08. The said ruling has been given in the case of M/s BAG Industries, vide (2023) 2 Centax 213 (A.A.R.- Cus. – Mum.)/2023 (384) E.L.T. 119 (A.A.R. – Cus.- Mum.) on 31-10-2022 by CAAR, MUMBAI. That the applicant has made the present application Bona fide and seeks the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble authority thereby seeking the subject goods under classification CTH 0812 and more particularly under the CTH 0812 90 90.

1.22 Accordingly, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Advance Ruling Authority may kindly pass order for appropriate classification of the goods as explained herein above.

Comments of Custom Port Commissionerate:

2.1 In terms of the provisions of the CAAR Regulations, 2021, copies of the complete application were forwarded to the concerned Customs Ports for furnishing their comments in the matter. However, NS-I and Dadri Customs did not submit any reply. The comments received from the other ports are summarized below:

2.2 Mundra Customs submitted that the applicant has sought classification of “Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts (Whole and Split)” under CTH0812 90 90 on the premise that the goods arc not suitable for immediate consumption and are treated with Sulphur dioxide or sodium benzoate; however, the applicant has failed to consider the specific tariff entry under CTH 0802 80 which directly covers areca nuts, and the processes undertaken do not alter the essential character of the goods, which remain dried areca nuts. It was further submitted that such applications are being filed to avoid classification under curry 080280 and thereby circumvent Minimum Import Price (MIP) and higher tariff values, and classification under GT1-108129090 appears to be an attempt to evade duty and bypass import policy restrictions. It was also submitted that the applicant has not provided adequate technical details or supporting evidence regarding the process of provisional preservation, and that dried areca nuts are already shell-stable commodities not requiring such preservation; hence, mere addition of preservatives does not satisfy the conditions of CTH 0812. Accordingly, it was submitted that the goods do not meet the requirements of heading 0812 and are correctly classifiable under CTH 0802 80, and the application is liable to be rejected.

2.3 SEEPZ SEZ Mumbai submitted that classification of the imported goods is to be determined in terms of the General Rules for Interpretation, wherein the specific entry under CTH 110802 covering areca lulls is to be preferred over the general entry under CTH 0812. It was submitted that the goods retain their essential character as areca nuts used 11)1^– masticatory purposes and that processes such as de-husking, splitting, drying and treatment with Sulphur dioxide or sodium benzoate are standard processing and preservation methods covered under Chapter Note 3 and do not amount to “provisional preservation” under Chapter Note 4. It was further submitted that the condition of being “unsuitable for immediate consumption” is not: satisfied, as the preservatives can be removed by simple washing, and therefore the applicant’s own submission contradicts the claim of provisional preservation. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including decisions of the Hon’ ble Supreme Court, CESTAT and CAAR, which have consistently held that processed areca nuts remain classifiable under CTH 0802. It was also submitted that classification under CTH10812 appears to be an attempt to circumvent Minimum Import Price (MIP) and higher tariff values, thereby affecting revenue and domestic industry. Accordingly, it was concluded that the goods merit classification under CTH 0802 and the application is not sustainable in law.

2.4 Tuticorin Customs submitted that the issue involved in the present application is already sub judice in similar matters and, therefore, in terms of Section 281(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the application may not be entertained. It was further submitted that CTH0812 applies only to perishable fruits and nuts requiring provisional preservation and remaining unsuitable for immediate consumption, whereas in the present case the areca nuts are already heat treated and dried, possess sufficient shelf life, and do not require such preservation. It: was also submitted that the goods arc imported in jumbo bags, which is inconsistent with goods covered under CTEI 0812, and that dried areca nuts are correctly classifiable under CTH11080280. It was further observed that classification under CTH0812 appears to be an attempt to circumvent Minimum Import Price (MIP), tariff value and applicable customs duties, besides raising potential public health concerns. Accordingly, it was concluded that the application seeking classification under CTH 0812 is liable to be rejected.

2.5 ICD Tughlakabad submitted that the applicant is eligible for advance ruling under Section 28E of the Customs Act, 1962 and has sought classification of provisionally preserved areca nuts (whole and split) under CTH 0812. It was further submitted that the goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 0802 80, as the processes such as de-husking, drying, heat treatment and preservation with Sulphur dioxide or sodium benzoate do not alter the essential character of areca nuts and constitute only simple preservation processes. It was also submitted that such treatment is intended merely to prevent fungal growth during transportation and the goods can be made fit for consumption by simple washing, thereby not satisfying the condition of being “unsuitable for immediate consumption” under CTH 0812. Reliance was placed on Chapter Note 3, judicial precedents including CAAR rulings and decisions of CESTAT and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and also on judicial findings regarding classification based on moisture content, all of which support classification under CTH 0802. It was further observed that classification under CTH 0812 appears to be an attempt to evade higher customs duty and circumvent Minimum Import Price (MIP) conditions. Accordingly, it was concluded that the goods merit classification under CTH 0802 80 and the application may not be entertained.

2.6 Visakhapatnam Customs submitted that the applicant has sought classification of provisionally preserved areca nuts (whole and split) under CTH 0812 90 90; however, as per Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 8, even after treatment for preservation or stabilization, dried areca nuts continue to remain classifiable under CTH 0802 80, specifically under tariff items 08028010 and 08028020. It was further submitted that CTH 0812 applies only to goods which are unsuitable for immediate consumption, whereas in the present case the goods do not undergo any process altering their essential character and the preservatives added can be removed by simple means, thereby restoring the original product. It was also submitted that as per the General Rules for Interpretation, the specific entry under CTH 0802 80 is to be preferred over the residual entry under CTH 0812 90 90, and that there is no dehydration or substantial processing to justify classification under 0812. Further, reference was made to DGFT policy indicating that areca nuts are subject to MIP and regulatory restrictions, and classification under CTH 0812 appears to be an attempt to circumvent such conditions and evade duty. Accordingly, it was concluded that the goods merit classification under CTH 0802 80 and the claim under CTH 0812 is not sustainable.

Additional Submissions:

The Applicant, vide letter dated 10.04.2026, submitted their rebuttal to the comments of the Ports. The same is summarized as below:

3.1 The applicant submitted that the comments furnished by the Customs Ports are factually misconceived, legally untenable and based on presumptions, as the correct legal position is that classification is to be determined strictly on the basis of the condition of goods at the time of import, which is the decisive test under Customs law. It was submitted that the Department has proceeded on an incorrect understanding of Heading 0812 and the nature of provisional preservation.

3.2 It was further submitted that the subject goods are not merely fresh or dried areca nuts covered under CTH 0802, but are chemically treated with preservatives such as Sulphur dioxide, sodium benzoate, slaked lime or Bordeaux solution, thereby rendering them unsuitable for immediate human consumption in the imported state. Accordingly, the goods satisfy the conditions of Heading 0812, which covers fruits and nuts provisionally preserved and unsuitable for immediate consumption.

3.3 The applicant contended that the Department has wrongly applied the test of “essential character”,

whereas the correct legal test under Heading 0812 is whether the goods are treated for provisional preservation and are unsuitable for immediate consumption. It was submitted that even if the goods retain their identity as areca nuts, they would still fall under Heading 0812 once the statutory conditions are fulfilled.

3.4 It was also submitted that the Department’s argument that preservation is not required is misplaced, as the tariff does not prescribe any requirement of “necessity” of preservation. The introduction of such a condition amounts to adding words to the statute, which is impermissible in law. It was_. further submitted that treatment with preservatives is a recognized commercial practice to prevent fungal growth, microbial degradation and contamination during transit.

3.5 The applicant further submitted that such preservation is temporary and reversible in nature, as the preservatives can be removed by simple processes such as washing, neutralization or chemical treatment prior to consumption. Therefore, in the imported condition, the goods remain unsuitable for immediate consumption, thereby satisfying the requirement of Heading 0812.

3.6 It was contended that reliance placed by the Department on factors such as Minimum Import Price (MIP), tariff value and alleged duty evasion is wholly irrelevant for classification purposes, as it is a settled principle that classification must be determined based on the nature and condition of goods and not on revenue considerations.

3.7 The applicant also submitted that sufficient details regarding the nature, purpose and removal of preservatives have been disclosed, and absence of exhaustive technical data cannot be a ground for rejection in advance ruling proceedings. It was further contended that reliance on packaging patterns or generalized interpretations of explanatory notes is misplaced, as such factors are only illustrative and not determinative.

3.8 The applicant emphasized that the goods, in their imported condition, are chemically treated and not lit For direct consumption, and therefore cannot be classified under Cal 0802. It was submitted that areca nuts lit for immediate consumption sill under CTH 0802, whereas provisionally preserved areca nuts, which are not fit for immediate consumption, fall under I leading 0812.

3.9 Reliance was placed on Chapter Notes, IISN explanatory Notes and prior advance rulings to submit that provisionally preserved areca nuts arc correctly classifiable under CTH 0812 90 90. Accordingly, it was prayed that the objections raised by the Department be rejected and the classification sought by the applicant he accepted.

Personal Hearing:

4.1 Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 10.04.2026 wherein the authorized representative of the applicant i.e. Adv 1-larish Kohl’, attended the same and reiterated the submissions made in the application and in their reply to the notice dated 23.03.2026. During the hearing, they requested that the judgment proposed to be relied upon by the Authority for deciding the application may be shared with him. No one appeared for the department.

4.2 Accordingly, the judgment dated 26.03.2026 rendered in CMA (MD) No. 1028 012023, in the matter of The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. M/s Hi Tech Print Systems, Chennai, as pronounced by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, was duly forwarded to the applicant vide email dated 10.04.2026.

5. Discussion, Findings & Conclusion

5.1 Upon examining the application for advance ruling, the comments received from the jurisdictional Commissionerate and the additional submissions filed by the applicant, I find that before examining the issue on merits, it is necessary to determine the maintainability of the present application in terms of Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

5.2 Section 28-1(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the admissibility of applications before the Custom Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR). The relevant portions of the provisions of Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:

28-I. Procedure on receipt of application: (1) On receipt of an application, the Authority shall cause copy thereof to be forwarded to the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs) and, if necessary, call upon him to furnish the relevant records:

Provided that where any records have been called for by the Authority in any case, such records shall, as soon as possible, be returned to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs)

(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 question raised in the application is, where the

(a) already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court,

(b) the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.

5.3 From the above, I find that Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the admissibility of applications before the Custom Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR). The first proviso to sub-section (2) stipulates that the Authority shall not allow the application 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; or (b) the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.

5.4 Further, I understand that mechanism of Advance Rulings serves as a vital trade facilitation measure, meticulously designed to mitigate protracted litigation and afford fiscal certainty to assesses—an objective aligned with the mandates of Article 3 of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. The WTO framework itself recognizes two distinct situations where advance rulings may be declined: (i)Sub-judice Limitation: Where the specific issue is pending adjudication in the applicant’s own proceedings (in persona), (ii) Settled Jurisprudence: Where the issue has reached finality through a decision by a competent Appellate Tribunal or Court (in rem).

5.4.1 The former is applicant-specific, while the latter is applicant-agnostic. This distinction is necessary because advance rulings are implemented by Departmental officers who are duty bound to apply the law as settled in their jurisdiction. In India, this position is fortified by the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC), which underscores the binding nature of precedent and the obligation of lower authorities to follow higher judicial pronouncements.

5.5 I have also examined the International practice and find that this interpretation is further consistent with international practice. In the United States, Binding Administrative Rulings (CROSS Rulings) are administered under Part 177, Chapter I of Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 177.7 explicitly stipulates that no ruling letter shall be issued in respect of any matter that is pending before the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or any appellate forum therefrom. This regulatory framework underscores a well-established and universally accepted legal principle, namely, that advance or binding rulings cannot be issued on questions already decided by higher judicial for a.

5.6 I find that the issue has been examined by the Board also and the interpretation of clause (b) has also been expressly clarified by CBEC vide Instruction F. No. 275/83/2012-CX.8A dated 29-11-2013. It is clear from the instructions that clause (b) of the first proviso to Section 28-I (2) is applicant-agnostic.

It provides that where a question has already been adjudicated upon by the Tribunal or a Court in the case of any party, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) shall not entertain an application raising the same question, even if preferred by a different applicant. However, it is incumbent upon the Authority to satisfy itself that the issue involved in the application is fully and squarely covered by the earlier judicial pronouncement. Accordingly, once it is established that the issue stands conclusively covered, the Authority ought to decline to entertain the application. It is a settled principle of law that rulings of the Tribunal and Courts are binding on subordinate authorities. The CAAR, being a statutory authority under the Customs Act, is equally bound by such precedents. To allow fresh application on questions already adjudicated by higher judicial for a would risk the creation of conflicting rulings and introduce uncertainty, an outcome contrary to the very object of the advance ruling mechanism. Clause (b) therefore operates as a statutory reinforcement of judicial discipline, making it explicit that once a question has been conclusively determined by the Tribunal or Courts, the Authority cannot re-adjudicate the same issue at the behest of another party.

5.7. In the instant case, I observed that the question raised in the present application is squarely covered by the judgment dated 26.03.2026 of the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. M/s Hi Tech Print Systems, Chennai [CMA (MD) No. 1028 of 2023J, wherein the issue relating to the classification of Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts has already been examined and decided. While arriving at the classification of Provisionally Preserved Areca Nuts under CTH 0802, the Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Krishna & Co v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, which is reported at 2015 (321) ELT A205 (SC). Further, I note that the applicant has not demonstrated any material change in the nature, composition, or processing of the goods in question that would warrant reconsideration of the classification issue.

In view of the forgoing facts and records of the case, I am of the view that the issue raised in the instant applications is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. M/s Hi Tech Print Systems, Chennai [CMA (MD) No. 1028 of 2023/. In adherence to the principles of judicial discipline and binding precedent, I deem it appropriate to refrain from pronouncing any ruling on the question raised in the instant application.

The application is not allowed and disposed of accordingly.