In re M G Trade Links (CAAR Mumbai)
The application for advance ruling was filed by M/s. M G Trade Links before the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai, under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The application, received on 7 January 2026, sought clarification regarding the tariff classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts (Cut/Whole)” under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The applicant stated that it intends to import roasted areca nuts, both whole and cut, from Burma, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. According to the applicant, under the classification scheme of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended by the Finance Bill, 2025, fruits, nuts, and other edible plant parts fall under Chapter Heading 2008. The applicant contended that roasted areca nuts are specifically classifiable under tariff item 2008 19 91 as “other roasted nuts and seeds.” The applicant argued that the product becomes classifiable under this tariff item due to the roasting process and relied on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes, which mention roasted nuts under this classification.
To support its argument, the applicant cited several Supreme Court decisions which held that HSN Explanatory Notes serve as a reliable guide for classification matters. The judgments referred to included decisions in L.M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2010), Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida (2015), and Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. (1995).
The applicant also indicated that the goods were intended to be imported through the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate (Import), Chennai. The application was forwarded to the jurisdictional Commissionerate on 21 January 2026 for comments, with a reminder issued on 9 February 2026. However, no response was received from the concerned authority.
A personal hearing was held on 25 February 2026. During the hearing, the applicant’s authorized representatives reiterated that the goods were roasted areca nuts and therefore classifiable under HS Code 20081991. They also relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023, and 1750/2023 involving the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate and other parties, where the issue of classification of roasted areca nuts had already been addressed.
During the hearing, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner representing the department stated that the issue had already been decided by the Madras High Court. It was also submitted that the goods would need to satisfy the applicable testing norms through an authorised laboratory, specifically the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), Delhi.
The Authority noted that the applicant itself acknowledged that the issue had already been decided by the High Court and that the ruling of the Authority in earlier cases had been upheld. In this context, the Authority referred to Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Under the proviso to this provision, an application for advance ruling cannot be allowed where the question raised is the same as a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.
The Authority also observed that tariff item 2008 19 20 had been substituted with tariff item 2008 19 91 through the Finance Act, 2025. This change was described as a renumbering at the eight-digit level and not a substantive alteration to the classification framework. The four-digit chapter heading, six-digit sub-heading, description of the heading, and relevant chapter notes remained unchanged.
Further, the Authority noted that both CAAR Mumbai and CAAR Delhi had previously issued several rulings concerning the classification of roasted areca nuts imported through various ports and inland container depots across the country. These rulings were based on the same issue that had been considered and upheld by the Madras High Court in its order dated 1 August 2023.
In the present case, the Authority found that the issue raised by the applicant was identical to those already decided earlier and that no new facts had been presented by the applicant for consideration. Since the question involved had already been decided by the Madras High Court, the Authority held that the application could not be entertained under the provisions of Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Accordingly, the Authority decided not to allow the application for advance ruling and rejected the application.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. M G Trade Links (IEC No.: BJUPG4182K) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Applicant’) filed an application (CAAR-1) for advance ruling in the Office of Secretary, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) Mumbai. The said application was received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 07.01.2026 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 Areca Nuts (Cut/Whole)” 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. M G Trade Links (IEC No.: BJUPG4182K). They intend to import “Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole) And Roasted Areca Nuts Cut” from Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. As per the present scheme of Classification of commodities under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (as amended vide Finance Bill, 2025) reproduced below, 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, ‘roasted betel nut/ areca nut (whole/cut) 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 the following 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:
i. L. M.L. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Reported in 2010(258)E.L. T 321 (S.C)
ii. Holostick India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Reported in 015 (318)E.L.T529(S.C)
iii. Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong Versus Wood Craft Products Ltd Reported in 1995 (77) E.L. T 23 (S,C)
3. The applicant in their CAAR-1 indicated that they intend to import the subject goods from jurisdictional Commissionerate of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate (Import), Custom House No. 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001. The application was forwarded to jurisdictional Commissionerate, Chennai-II (Import) for their comments on 21.01.2026 and subsequent reminder dated 09.02.2026.
However, no response was received from the concerned jurisdictional authority.
4. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 25.02.2026 wherein the authorized representative of the applicant Shri A. K. Jayaraj, Sr. Advocate & Shri K. Murugan, Advocate, attended the personal hearing. They reiterated the submission made in the application that the subject goods are roasted areca nuts falling under HS code 20081991 as other roasted nuts and seeds. They rely upon the several case laws including I-Hon’ble Madras High Court judgement in the matter of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) No’s 600/2023, No. 1206/2023 and No 1750/2023, the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate Vs M/s Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd. & Others, in which the issue has already been decided.
The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner appeared from the department side and submitted that the case is already decided by Hon’ble Madras High Court and that the subject goods have to satisfy the testing norms by an authorised lab i.e. CRCL, Delhi.
5. 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[***] 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. It is also observed that tariff item 2008 19 20 is substituted with 2008 19 91 vide the Finance Act, 2025, which is merely a renumbering at the eight-digit level and does not amount to any substantive change in the classification scheme. The four-digit chapter heading and six-digit sub-heading, heading description and the relevant Chapter Notes remain unchanged.
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 and I observe that ‘No new facts have been put forth by the applicant before this authority to decide the classification.
8. 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 gourd of Madras in its order dated 01.08.2023 (cited as above), therefore in accordance with the provisions of Section 28-1, sub-section (2); and proviso (b) of the first proviso of sub-section (2) of section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962, I decide ‘not to allow’ the application.
9. The application is rejected and disposed of accordingly.
