Case Law Details
In re R R Exports (CAAR Mumbai)
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai, received an application filed by the applicant under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Flavoured Supari” under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The application was filed on 06.02.2026.
The applicant submitted that it intended to import flavoured supari from countries including Burma, Indonesia, Thailand, and Sri Lanka. It contended that, under the tariff classification framework, fruits, nuts, and processed edible plant products fall under Chapter Headings 0802 and 2008, while flavoured supari is specifically classifiable under Tariff Item 21069030.
The authority referred to Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that an application for advance ruling may be rejected if the issue raised is already pending before any court, tribunal, or authority, or has already been decided in a similar matter.
It was noted that a similar issue had previously been decided by the authority in another case, but the operation of that ruling had been stayed by the Delhi High Court. The stay order remained in force at the time of consideration of the present application.
During the personal hearing held on 27.04.2026, the applicant reiterated its submissions regarding classification under Tariff Item 21069030 and relied on a prior case where a similar ruling had been upheld. The applicant also argued that the existence of a stay order in another case should not prevent the authority from deciding the present application. In support, reliance was placed on judicial precedent to suggest that a stay does not bar adjudication.
The authority, however, observed that the issue raised in the present application was identical to the matter pending before the Delhi High Court, where the earlier ruling had been stayed. It held that, in view of the pendency of the issue before a higher judicial forum and the operative stay, issuing a fresh ruling would not be appropriate. The authority also found that the case law relied upon by the applicant was not applicable due to differences in facts and circumstances.
Relying on the provisions of Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and principles of judicial discipline, the authority decided to refrain from passing any ruling in the case. It concluded that the application could not be entertained at this stage due to the pendency of a similar issue before the High Court.
The authority clarified that the applicant would be at liberty to approach it again after the final decision of the High Court, if it so desired. Accordingly, the application was disposed of without issuing any advance ruling.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. R. R. Exports (IEC No.: 3209016941) (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 06.02.2026 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 “Flavoured Supari” under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Submission by the Applicant:
2.1 The applicant submitted that they are a firm in the name and style of M/s. R. R. Exports (IEC No.: 3209016941). They intend to import “Flavoured Supari” from Burma, Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka. As per the present scheme of Classification of commodities under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Fruits, Nuts, processed Nuts and other edible parts of plants are classified under the Chapter Heading 0802 and 2008, while flavoured supari are particularly and specifically classified under the Tariff Item 21069030.
3. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that there is one specific provision given under sub section (2) of section 28-I of Customs Act, 1962, which is reproduced 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:”
4. It is pertinent to mention that a ruling passed by this authority in a similar matter in the case of M/s Bag Industries (Ruling No. CAAR/MUM/ARC/90,91,92&93/2024 dated 19.06.2024) is pending before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and operation of the said ruling has been stayed by the order dated 23.09.2024.
5. Personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 27.04.2026 wherein the authorized representative of the applicant Shri . K. Murugan, Advocate, attended the personal hearing. He reiterated the submissions made by the applicant that the applicant wished to import “Betel nut product known as flavoured supari” which merit classification under CT1-21069030. He relied upon the case law of A.K Impex in which the Advance Ruling passed by the authority was upheld and the department appeal was rejected.
5.1 It was specifically asked that in a similar identical issue of M/s. Bag Industries Hon’ble High Court judication at Delhi had stayed the operation; the learned AR would say that stay was not a bar to decide the case. He relied upon a case law in the matter of Shree Mopeds Ltd. Vs Church of South India Trust Association in civil appeal no. 2553 of 1991 decided on 29.04.1992 by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also relied upon the argument put forth in the written submission submitted during PH.
Nobody appeared for PH from the department side.
6. I observe that it is a fact that in a subsequent and similar Ruling passed by this authority in the case of M/s. Bag Industries, the stay is granted by Hon’ble Delhi High Court which is still in operation. Therefore, I am of the view that since the question raised in this very application on the similar/identical matter is pending before Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the operation of the ruling passed by this authority has been stayed by the Order dated 23.09.2024, fresh ruling cannot be issued. The case law relied upon by the applicant is not relevant to this case in as much the facts and circumstances of that case is different.
7. Accordingly, considering the provisions of Section 28-I sub-section (2) of Customs Act, 1962 and binding judicial discipline, I decide to refrain from passing any ruling in the instant case. However, the applicant will have liberty to approach this authority after the matter is finally decided by Hon’ble Court and the applicant so desire.
8. Therefore, I refrain from passing any ruling in this case. The application is disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
