Case Law Details
In re Sha Kantilal Jayantilal (CAAR Mumbai)
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai considered applications filed by M/s. Sha Kantilal Jayantilal seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Roasted Betel/Areca Nuts and Roasted Betel/Areca Nuts Cut” under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The applications were received on 07.04.2026 under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The applicant stated that it intended to import roasted betel or areca nuts, including cut varieties, from Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Burma/Myanmar, Bangladesh, Thailand, Madagascar, Vietnam, and Nepal while availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011. The applicant submitted that fruits, nuts, and edible plant parts are classified under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, while roasted nuts are specifically classifiable under Tariff Item 2008 1991.
According to the applicant, roasted areca nuts became classifiable under HS Code 2008 1991 solely because of the roasting process, as indicated in the HSN Explanatory Notes. The applicant also relied on Supreme Court decisions holding that HSN Explanatory Notes are dependable guides in classification matters.
The application was forwarded to the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate at Tuticorin for comments and records. However, no response was received from the Commissionerate.
During the personal hearing held on 27.04.2026, the applicant’s authorized representative reiterated that the imported goods were roasted areca nuts and contended that they were earlier classifiable under CTI 20081920 and, after tariff changes in 2025, under CTI 20081991. Reliance was placed on the judgments in the matters of Shahnaz Commodities, Neena Enterprises, and Universal Impex, where earlier advance rulings were upheld by the Madras High Court. The applicant further contended that, as held by the Madras High Court and upheld by the Supreme Court, areca nuts with moisture content below 10% would be treated as roasted areca nuts. It was also submitted that the benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. was available subject to fulfilment of country-of-origin conditions. Written submissions citing various Supreme Court judgments and earlier CAAR rulings were also filed. No departmental representative appeared during the hearing.
CAAR examined Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which bars admission of an application where the issue raised has already been decided by a Court or Tribunal.
The Authority observed that the issue relating to classification of roasted areca or betel nuts had already been adjudicated by the Madras High Court in its judgment dated 01.08.2023 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023. The Authority also noted that both CAAR Mumbai and CAAR Delhi had issued several rulings on similar imports based on the same High Court judgment.
CAAR held that the question raised by the applicant was identical to an issue already decided by a Court and therefore attracted the statutory bar under proviso (b) to Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the Authority declined to allow the applications and rejected them.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Sha Kantilal Jayantilal (IEC No.: 0488020310) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) filed applications (CAAR- 1) for advance ruling in the Office of Secretary, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) Mumbai. The said applications were received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 07.04.2026 along with its enclosures in terms of Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ also). The Applicant is seeking advance ruling on the issue of classification of the “Roasted Betel/Areca Nuts and Roasted Betel/Areca Nuts Cut” under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Submission by the Applicant:
2.1 The applicant submitted that it is a firm in the name and style of M/s. Sha Kantilal Jayantilal (IEC No.: 0488020310). They intend to import “Roasted Betel/Areca Nuts and Roasted Betel/Areca Nuts Cut” from, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Burma/Myanmar, Bangladesh, Thailand, Madagascar, Vietnam and Nepal taking benefit of exemption notification No. 46/2011-Customs dated 01.06.2011. As per the present scheme of Classification of commodities under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Fruits, Nuts and other edible parts of plants are classified under the Chapter Heading 2008, while other roasted nuts are particularly and specifically classified under the Tariff Item 2008 1991:
2.2 The Applicant submitted that the proposed item to be imported are ‘roasted betel nut/ areca nuts (whole/cut) and are classifiable under the HS Code 2008 1991 by virtue of mere roasting as clearly given in the HSN Explanatory Note by the product name. The Applicant further submitted several case law citations wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided and reiterated that the HSN Explanatory Note is the safe and dependable guide in the matters of classification of items.
3. Port of Import and reply from Jurisdictional Commissionerate
3.1 In terms of provisions of the Section 28-I (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sub-Regulation no. (7) of the Regulation no. 8 of the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings Regulations, 2021, on the receipt of the said application, office of the CAAR, Mumbai forwarded copy of the said application/submissions to the concerned Jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate i.e. The Commissioner of Customs (Import), Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin calling upon them to furnish the relevant records with comments, if any, in respect of said application on 27.03.2026 and 16.04.2026.
However, no reply has been received from Jurisdictional Commissionerate till date.
4. Records of Personal Hearing
4.1 A personal hearing was held on 27.04.2026 at 03.15 PM wherein, Shri N. Balaji, AR appeared for the Personal Hearing in the matter on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated the contention filed with the application that the subject imports goods are roasted areca nuts and merit classification earlier under CTI 20081920 and after change in tariff items from 2025 under CTI 20081991. He relied upon the case law in the matter of M/s. Shahnaz Commodities, M/s. Neena Enterprises an M/s. Universal Impex in which the Advance Ruling issued by the authority was upheld by Hon’ble Madras High Court. He further contended that as held by Hon’ble Madras High Court that moisture content anything below 10% would be considered as roasted areca nut (this order is upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court). He also submitted that the benefit of Notf. No. 46/2011 Cus, Sr. No. 172 is available subject to fulfilment of condition given in the country of origin provisions. He also filed a written submission in support of their contention of classification and notification benefit citing various judgement i.e. Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. CCX, Ghaziabad reported in 2007 (210) ELT 180 (SC) and CCX, Goa vs. Phil Corporation Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 9(SC) and enclosed order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17655 & 17656/2025 dt. 25.07.2025 and Ruling No. CAAR/MUM/ARC/85, 86/2025-26 dated 30.09.2025 in the case of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate Vs M/s Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. & Others, in which the issue has already been decided.
Nobody appeared for PH from the department side.
5. Discussions and Findings:
5.1 As the applicant cited that the issue had already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court in which ruling of the authority was upheld. In this backdrop, the relevant excerpts of sub section (2) of section 28-1 of Customs Act, 1962 is important, which is produced below:
“(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for, by order either allow or reject the application; Provided that the Authority shall not allow the application 59 [***J where the question raised in the application is,-
(a) already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court;
(b) same as in a matter decided already by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court:”
6. In the present case, the precise issue relating to the classification of roasted areca/betel nuts has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in a judgement dated 01.08.2023 in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) Nos 600/2023, No. 1206/2023 and No: 1750/2023, in the matter of the Commissioner s Chennai-II Commissionerate Vs M/s Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. M/s. Neena Enterprises and M/s Universal Impex in which the ruling passed by this authority was upheld.
7. This Authority as well as CAAR, Delhi have already issued multiple rulings in a sizeable number of applications intending import of the subject ‘Roasted Areca Nuts’ through various major/minor ports/Inland container Depots, spread across the country. The all such rulings are based on the same matter as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its order dated 01.08.2023 cited above. In the instant case also the issue is identical/similar one.
8. Accordingly, I find that the question raised by the applicant is identical to one already decided by a Court, and the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 squarely applies.
9. In view of the forgoing facts and records of the case, I hereby observe and hold that the question raised in this very application has already been decided by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its order dated 01.08.2023 (cited as above), therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-I, sub-section (2); and proviso (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, I decide ‘not to allow’ the application.
10. The application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
