In re Jineshwar Impex (CAAR Mumbai)
Summary: M/s Jineshwar Impex filed an application before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai seeking an advance ruling on classification of “Roasted Areca Nut (Whole/Split/Cut)”. The application was received on 22.06.2026 under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicant proposed to import roasted areca nuts from Burma (Myanmar), Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, UAE and Singapore. The applicant sought classification under CTH 2008 19 91, covering “Other Roasted Nuts and Seeds”.
The applicant described a process involving de-husking and drying, followed by repeated heating and roasting in a seed-roasting oven at approximately 130°C to 150°C, cooling and re-feeding into the oven, with the cycle repeated until moisture content fell below 10%. The applicant submitted that roasting produced changes in appearance and chemical characteristics, including changes in tannin and arecoline content, and contended that the goods were distinct from raw or merely dried areca nuts.
The applicant relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapters 8 and 20, particularly the portion concerning almonds, groundnuts, areca or betel nuts and other nuts which are dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted. It also relied upon the decisions referred to in the application, including Commissioner of Customs Vs Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd., C.M.A. Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023, as well as the earlier CAAR ruling in In re Universal Impex (CAAR Mumbai). The applicant also referred to M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2010 (258) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.); Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.); and Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), in support of the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
The jurisdictional Customs Commissionerates furnished comments. The Mundra Commissionerate pointed out that the reference to CTH 2001 19 91 in one part of the application appeared to be a typographical error and stated that the issue of classification of roasted areca nuts had already been examined in earlier CAAR rulings, including the ruling concerning Konet Technology Inc. The Chennai-II Commissionerate opposed the applicant’s claim and submitted, among other things, that areca nuts were specifically covered under CTH 0802 80, that moderate heat treatment or drying would not necessarily take the goods outside Chapter 08, and that the applicant had not furnished consignment-specific laboratory evidence establishing that the goods were “roasted”. It also referred to moisture content, tannin, arecoline and other chemical parameters and suggested testing of representative samples at importation.
The Chennai-II Commissionerate further referred to the earlier CAAR rulings concerning Universal Impex, Shahnaz Commodities International and Neena Enterprises and the Madras High Court judgment dated 01.08.2023. It also referred to the subsequent proceedings concerning Genuine Spices and Unik Traders, including the order dated 14.10.2025 in W.P. No. 36557 of 2025 and W.A. Nos. 3647 and 3648 of 2024. The Commissionerate stated that the classification issue should be independently examined on the basis of the actual goods, processes and testing, and that the issue had also been referred to the National Assessment Centre and the CBIC Board for formulation of uniform criteria.
The applicant responded that the reference to CTH 2001 19 91 was a bona fide typographical error and requested that it be read as CTH 2008 19 91. In its rejoinder to the Chennai-II comments, the applicant maintained that the application was maintainable, that no consignment-specific laboratory report could be made a precondition for an advance ruling concerning goods proposed to be imported, and that the HSN Explanatory Notes expressly recognised roasted areca nuts under Heading 2008. The applicant also relied upon the decision in Genuine Spices and contended that the principles concerning the distinction between roasting and drying, HSN Explanatory Notes and the specific-entry-over-general-entry principle had already been considered by the Madras High Court.
A personal hearing was granted on 15.07.2026. The authorised representative reiterated the written submissions and specifically requested an advance ruling classifying the subject goods under CTH 2008 19 91. No representative appeared for the Department.
The Authority then considered Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The provision states that the Authority may, after examining the application and records, allow or reject the application, but shall not allow it where the question raised is already pending in the applicant’s case before an officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court, or is the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.
The Authority found that the precise issue concerning classification of roasted areca/betel nuts had already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in its judgment dated 01.08.2023 in C.M.A. Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023 in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate v. M/s Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Universal Impex and M/s Neena Enterprises. The Authority further observed that the decision was subsequently considered in W.A. Nos. 3647 and 3648 of 2024, where the ruling classifying the goods under CTH 20081920, corresponding to CTH 20081991 under the present Customs Tariff, was upheld.
The Authority also noted that CAAR Mumbai and CAAR Delhi had pronounced several rulings concerning proposed imports of “Roasted Areca Nuts” through various ports and Inland Container Depots and that the classification issue was the same as, or substantially similar to, the issue already adjudicated by the Madras High Court. According to the Authority, the present application did not disclose any material distinguishing feature or new factual circumstance warranting different consideration.
The Authority expressly recorded that although the Madras High Court decision was not in a case filed by the present applicant, the question raised nevertheless fell within Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. On that basis, the Authority held that the question had already been decided by an Hon’ble Court. It therefore did not proceed to decide the substantive classification issue under CTH 0802 80 or CTH 2008 19 91 on the merits. Instead, in terms of the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(b), the application was disallowed and disposed of accordingly.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner of Customs Vs Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd., C.M.A. Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023 — considered as the Madras High Court decision which had already adjudicated the classification issue concerning roasted areca/betel nuts.
- In re Universal Impex (CAAR Mumbai), Ruling Nos. CAAR/Mum/ARC/39, 40 & 41/2023 — referred to as an earlier CAAR ruling concerning classification of roasted areca nuts under CTH 20081920.
- In re Shahnaz Commodities International (CAAR Mumbai), Ruling Nos. CAAR/Mum/ARC/44, 45 & 46/2022 — referred to as an earlier CAAR ruling concerning classification of roasted areca nuts under Heading 2008.
- M/s Neena Enterprises — referred to in connection with the connected CAAR rulings and the Madras High Court proceedings concerning classification of roasted areca nuts.
- Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Genuine Spices, CMA (MD) No. 305 of 2024, decided on 28.03.2024 — relied upon by the applicant concerning roasting at 130°C–150°C, moisture removal, laboratory evidence, packing and the application of the ratio in Shahnaz Commodities.
- Unik Traders Vs Commissioner of Customs — referred to in the Commissionerate’s comments in relation to the treatment of roasted areca nut where moisture content was below 10%.
- In re Konet Technology Inc. (CAAR Mumbai) — referred to by the Mundra Commissionerate as an earlier CAAR ruling concerning classification of roasted areca nuts.
- M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2010 (258) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — relied upon by the applicant concerning the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes in classification.
- Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) — relied upon by the applicant concerning the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes.
- Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — relied upon by the applicant concerning HSN as an aid to tariff classification.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s Jineshwar Impex (IEC: BXRPL.1951Q) (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 22.06.2026 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 Nut (Whole/Split/Cut)”
2. Submission by the Applicant:
2.1 The applicant submitted that it is a Proprietorship firm in the name and style of M/s Jineshwar Impex (IEC: BXRPL.1951Q). They intend to import “Roasted Areca Nut (Whole)/Roasted Areca Nut (Split) and Roasted Areca Nut (Cut) from Burma (Myanmar), Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, UAE and Singapore into India.
2.2 The Applicant submitted that the following processes are carried out on the Roasted Areca Nut (Whole), Roasted Areca Nut (Split) and Roasted Areca Nut (Cut):
2.2.1 De-husking of the raw betel/areca nuts followed by drying of the same before feeding them into the roasting oven;
2.2.2 Feeding the areca nuts into a seed-roasting oven, where they are subjected to temperatures substantially above 100°C, generally in the range of 130°C to 150°C. The roasting is carried out using firewood/palm-kernel-based ovens of a seed-roasting machine, wherein the temperature of the flames is stated to be around 60°C;
2.2.3 Taking the areca nuts out of the oven, allowing them to cool to room temperature and thereafter feeding them back into the oven for further heating and roasting. This cycle is repeated until the moisture content of the areca nuts falls below 10%;
2.2.4 The Applicant submitted that the areca nuts are repeatedly subjected to heating, roasting and cooling so as to facilitate rapid cooling and shrinkage following thermal expansion, thereby producing roasted areca nuts of the desired quality. The total roasting process is stated to take approximately 2 to 3 days; and
2.2.5 Thereafter, the roasted areca nuts are packed in industrial packs ranging from 30 kg to 80 kg, depending upon the requirement.
2.2.6 The Applicant submitted that, as a result of the aforesaid roasting process, the roasted areca nuts undergo changes in their appearance and chemical characteristics as compared with raw areca nuts.
2.2.7 The Applicant further submitted that roasting results in a substantial change in the chemical characteristics of the product. According to the Applicant, the tannin and arecoline contents of raw areca nut are substantially altered upon subjecting the nuts to the roasting process. On this basis, the Applicant contended that roasted areca nut constitutes a distinct form of the product and is suitable for immediate consumption.
2.2.8 The Applicant submitted that the roasting process is not undertaken merely for the purpose of additional preservation or stabilization, or for improving or maintaining the appearance of the product. According to the Applicant, the roasted areca nuts are consumed as such as mukhwas and are also commonly consumed along with paan (betel leaf).
2.2.9 The Applicant relied upon the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 8 and submitted that fruits and nuts of Chapter 8 remain classified therein even when put up in airtight packing, such as dried prunes and dried nuts in cans. However, the Applicant submitted that products which have been prepared or preserved otherwise than as provided for in the headings of Chapter 8 are excluded from Chapter 8 and are covered under Chapter 20.
2.2.10 The Applicant submitted that the processes contemplated under Chapter 8 are distinct from the process undertaken on the subject goods and that the roasting process carried out on the areca nuts is not one of the processes contemplated under Chapter 8. The Applicant further relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 20, which cover vegetables, fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants prepared or preserved by processes other than those provided for in Chapters 7, 8 or 11 or elsewhere in the Nomenclature.
2.2.11 The Applicant specifically relied upon the portion of the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 20 which states that the Chapter includes, inter alia, “almonds, groundnuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted, or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.”
2.2.12 The Applicant further submitted that the HSN Explanatory Notes constitute an important and reliable aid for determining the classification of goods, particularly where there is a dispute between competing tariff entries. In support of this contention, the Applicant relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.L. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.); Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, reported in 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.); and Collector of Central Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.).
2.2.13 The Applicant further relied upon Notification No. 43/2025-26 dated 15.10.2025, issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), and submitted that the said notification amended the import policy relating to areca nuts under ITC (HS) Code 08028090 and roasted areca nuts under ITC (HS) Code 2008 19 91. The Applicant submitted that the notification prescribes a Minimum Import Price (MIP) of ₹351 per kilogram and provides that import of roasted areca nuts having a CIF value below the prescribed threshold is prohibited, whereas imports at or above the prescribed value are permissible.
2.2.14 The Applicant further relied upon Ruling Nos. CAAR/Mum/ARC/39, 40 & 41/2023, dated 07.12.2022, in the case of M/s. Universal Impex, Mumbai, and submitted that the Authority had examined the classification of similar/identical goods and held the same to be classifiable under CTH 2008 19 20. The Applicant submitted that the said ruling, along with other rulings concerning areca nut products, had been challenged by the Customs Department before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and that the connected appeals were dismissed vide judgment dated 01.08.2023.
2.2.15 The Applicant submitted that the aforesaid ruling of the Authority was challenged by the Customs Department before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CMA Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1730/2023, in the matters concerning Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. M/s Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt Ltd. and connected matters. The Applicant submitted that the Hon’ble High Court, vide judgment dated 01.08.2023, dismissed the appeals filed by the Department.
2.2.16 The Applicant submitted that the process of roasting thus changes the chemical and physical characteristics of the areca nut by reducing arecoline and tannin as well moisture. In view of the above, the applicant would like to have advance ruling on the following issue:
“Whether the goods sought to be imported, i.e. Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole) and Roasted Areca Nuts Cut” is classifiable under the CTH 2008 19 91”
3. Statements containing Applicant’s interpretation of Law and/or facts, as the case may be, in respect of the question(s) on which Advance Ruling is Required
3.1 The applicant has submitted that the goods proposed to be imported are “Roasted Betel Nuts/Areca Nuts” and that the same are appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008, and more particularly under CTH 2008 19 91, covering “Other Roasted Nuts and Seeds”.
3.2 The applicant has relied upon the relevant HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 08 and submitted that fruits and nuts of Chapter 08 remain classified therein even when put up in airtight packing, such as dried prunes and dried nuts in cans. However, according to the applicant, products which have been prepared or preserved otherwise than by the processes contemplated under Chapter 08 are excluded from that Chapter and are appropriately classifiable under Chapter 20.
3.3 The applicant has accordingly contended that the processes undertaken in respect of the subject goods are different from the processes contemplated for goods falling under Chapter 08. It has therefore been submitted that the subject goods, having undergone roasting, are excluded from Chapter 08 and merit classification under Chapter 20.
3.4 In support of its claim, the applicant has relied upon the tariff description of Heading 2008, which covers:
“Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included.”
The applicant has specifically relied upon CTH 2008 19 91 — “Other Roasted Nuts and Seeds” and submitted that the subject roasted betel/areca nuts are specifically covered by the said tariff entry.
3.5 The applicant has further relied upon the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 20 and submitted that the Chapter covers, inter alia, vegetables, fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants prepared or preserved by processes not provided for in Chapters 07, 08 or 11 or elsewhere in the Nomenclature. The applicant has particularly relied upon the portion of the HSN Explanatory Notes which states that the Chapter includes almonds, groundnuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts which are dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives.
3.6 On the basis of the aforesaid HSN Explanatory Notes, the applicant has contended that roasted areca/betel nuts are expressly contemplated under Chapter 20 and, more particularly, under Heading 2008. It has therefore been submitted that the specific tariff entry for roasted nuts should prevail over the general entry applicable to areca nuts under Chapter 08.
3.7 The applicant has stated that the subject roasted betel nuts are intended for chewing and are commercially used for purposes such as stress relief, mouth freshening, improvement of concentration and as a digestive aid after food intake. According to the applicant, the nature and intended use of the goods are also indicative of their character as a prepared/roasted product rather than raw or merely dried areca nuts.
3.8 With regard to the process of roasting, the applicant has submitted that the subject betel/areca nuts are roasted using firewood/palm-kernel-based ovens. It has been stated that the temperature of the flames may reach approximately 600°C, whereas the betel nuts themselves are subjected to temperatures generally ranging between 130°C and 150°C during the roasting process.
3.9 The applicant has submitted that the roasting process results in a perceptible change in the appearance as well as the chemical characteristics of the betel/areca nuts. According to the applicant, an ash-like substance becomes visibly deposited on the outer surface of the nuts as a consequence of the roasting process.
3.10 The applicant has further submitted that roasting causes a substantial change in the chemical characteristics of the product, particularly with regard to its tannin and arecoline content. In support of this contention, the applicant has relied upon an article titled “Estimation of arecoline content of various forms of areca nut preparations by high-pressure thin-layer chromatography”. The applicant has referred to the findings in the said article regarding the variation in tannin and arecoline content depending upon the maturity and processing method of areca nuts.
3.11 According to the applicant, the aforesaid study indicates that processing by roasting and boiling substantially alters the tannin and arecoline content of areca nuts. The applicant has therefore contended that roasted betel/areca nut constitutes a distinctive product obtained from raw areca nut and is rendered suitable for immediate consumption as a consequence of the roasting process.
3.12 The applicant has further submitted that the roasting process is not undertaken merely for additional preservation or stabilization of the nuts or for improving or maintaining their appearance. Rather, according to the applicant, roasting constitutes a substantive processing operation which changes the physical and chemical characteristics of the raw areca nut.
3.13 The applicant has accordingly contended that although areca nut constitutes the principal raw material, the roasting process results in a product having distinct characteristics and identity. The applicant has therefore submitted that the goods cannot appropriately be classified as areca nuts under Chapter 08 and are instead covered by the specific entry for roasted nuts under CTH 2008 19 91.
3.14 The applicant has further placed reliance upon an earlier Advance Ruling of the Authority in the case of M/s Shahnaz Commodities International, Chennai, vide Ruling dated 07.12.2022, bearing No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/44, 45 & 46/2022, wherein the goods involved therein were stated to have been classified under Chapter 20, particularly under CTH 2008 19 20, rather than under Chapter 08.
3.15 The applicant has submitted that the aforesaid ruling was challenged by the Customs Department before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CMA Nos. 600, 1206 and 1750 of 2023, Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. M/s Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. The applicant has stated that the said appeals were rejected by the Hon’ble High Court vide judgment dated 01.08.2023.
3.16 The applicant has relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble High Court concerning the distinction between roasting, boiling and drying processes and has submitted that roasting is a process distinct from boiling and drying for the purpose of determining the classification of betel/areca nuts. The applicant has further relied upon the observation that, where a specific tariff entry covers the goods, such specific entry would prevail over a general entry.
3.17 The applicant has also submitted that the Hon’ble High Court recognised the HSN Explanatory Notes as a safe guide for determining classification under the Customs Tariff and has contended that the specific reference to roasted areca/betel nuts in the HSN Explanatory Notes supports classification of the subject goods under CTH 2008 19 91.
3.18 The applicant has therefore contended that the subject goods, being roasted areca/betel nuts, are specifically covered under CTH 2008 19 91 and cannot appropriately be classified under Chapter 08 merely on the basis that the underlying raw material is areca nut. According to the applicant, classification under the specific entry for roasted nuts is required to be preferred over the general entry for areca nuts.
3.19 The applicant has accordingly submitted that the present application has been made bona fide and has requested that an Advance Ruling be issued confirming classification of the subject Roasted Areca Nuts/Betel Nuts under CTH 2008 19 91.
4. Port of Import and reply from Jurisdictional Commissionerate
4.1 In terms of provisions of 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 Commissionerates i.e. (1) The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II (Import), Custom House No. 60 Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600001, (2) The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Customs House Mundra, 5B, Port User Building, Mundra Port, Mundra, Kutch, Gujarat-370421, (3) The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin-628004, Tamil Nadu and (4) The Commissioner of Customs, NS-I, JNCH, Tal-Uran, Dist: Raigad, Nhava Sheva, Maharashtra-400707, calling upon them to furnish the relevant records with comments, if any, in respect of said application on 03.07.2026. In response, comments have been received from Mundra and Chennai-II Commissionerate vide letters dated 09.07.2026 and 03.08.2026 wherein it has been mentioned that:
4.2 Comments received from Mundra Customs Commissionerate:
4.2.1 M/s Jineshwar Impex has filed an application before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), New Custom House, Mumbai, seeking classification of its product “Roasted Areca Nut (Whole)/Roasted Areca nuts (Split), Roasted Areca nuts (Cut)” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2001 1991 ‘Other roasted nuts & seeds’. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has mentioned classification 2001.1991, however, no such tariff entry is available under the Customs Tariff Schedule. It appears to be a typo error from the applicant’s submission.
4.2.2 It is submitted that the issue of classification of goods described as “Roasted Areca Nut” has already been examined and decided by the Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai, in the case of M/s. Konet Technology Inc., vide Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/4, 5, 6 & 7/2026-27 dated 29.04.2026, as well as in other similar advance rulings.
4.2.3 Furthermore, it is submitted that the issue of classification of “Roasted Areca Nut” has been examined and consistently decided by the Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai, in a series of similar advance rulings. Accordingly, it is contended that the classification of “Roasted Areca Nut” has already been settled in the aforesaid rulings. In view of the foregoing, the Applicant submits that calling for fresh comments from the Commissionerate of Customs, Mundra, on the same issue of classification would serve no useful purpose, as such an exercise would be repetitive and redundant. It is, therefore, prayed that the present matter may be proceeded with and decided on the basis of the existing advance rulings and the material already available on record.
4.3 Comments received from CHENNAI-2 Customs Commissionerate
4.3.1 In view of the submissions made by the Applicant, reference is invited to the relevant facts, notes, and other relevant details of the 2008 subheading under Chapter 20.
| 20.08 | Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included. |
| 2008.11 | Ground-nuts |
| 2008.19 | Other, including mixtures |
| 2008.20 | Pineapples |
| 2008.30 | Citrus fruit |
| 2008.40 | Pears |
| 2008.50 | Apricots |
| 2008.60 | Cherries |
| 2008.70 | Peaches, including nectarines |
| 2008.80 | Strawberries |
| 2008.91 | Palm hearts |
| 2008.93 | Cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon, Vaccinium oxycoccos); lingonberries (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) |
| 2008.97 | Mixtures |
| 2008.99 | Other |
4.3.2 This heading covers fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, whether whole, in pieces or crushed, including mixtures thereof, prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter. It includes, inter alia, almonds, groundnuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat roasted, whether or not containing or coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours, spices or other additives. The products of this heading are generally put up in cans, jars or airtight containers; or in casks, barrels or similar containers.
4.3.3 It is further submitted that the subject goods are generally imported in bulk quantities, packed in 50 kg bags and stuffed in containers. Such manner of packing does not correspond with the general mode of packing contemplated in the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008, wherein the goods are generally stated to be put up in cans, jars, airtight containers, casks, barrels or similar containers.
4.3.4 It is the considered opinion of the Commissionerate that the claims made by the applicant and the ruling sought are devoid of substantive evidence and are legally untenable on the following grounds:
For the sake of clarity and comprehensive understanding, it is imperative to reproduce Note 3 of Chapter 08 in its entirety:
“3. Dried fruit 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, sulphuring, 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 nuts.”
4.3.5 It is crucial to note that the item “Areca Nut/Betel Nut” is specifically and unambiguously covered under CTH 0802 80 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Chapter heading 0802 provides a clear and comprehensive description, which reads as “Other nuts, fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled”. This explicit inclusion undeniably encompasses areca nuts in their dried/heat-treated form, regardless of whether they have been shelled or peeled, under the chapter heading 0802.
4.3.6 The import of Areca Nut under 0802 80 as well as under 2008 19 91 is subject to important regulatory and revenue measures, namely:
a. The Minimum Import Price (MIP) requirement prescribed vide DGFT Notification No. 43/2025-26 dated: 15.10.2025;
b. The Tariff Value/Rate of valuation applicable to Areca Nuts under CTSH 0802 80;
c. The differential rate of Basic Customs Duty applicable under CTH 0802 80 as compared to CTH 2008 19 91.
4.3.7 It is observed that vide DGFT Notification No. 43/2025-26 dated 15.10.2025, the Central Government has amended the import policy condition applicable to Areca Nuts falling under ITC (HS) Codes 08028090 as well as 20081991, prescribing a uniform Minimum Import Price (MIP) of Rs. 351/- per kilogram (CIF) for both the said codes, below which import is prohibited. It is, therefore, seen that the said Notification, being applicable equally to raw/dried Areca Nuts as well as roasted nuts and seeds, is not, by itself, determinative of the classification dispute; the MIP compliance obligation would apply to the applicant’s goods regardless of whether the same are classified under CTH 080280 or CTH 2008 19 91.
4.3.8 Notwithstanding the above, it is pertinent to note that import of Areca Nuts is also subject to a Tariff Value as stipulated in CBIC Notification No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated 03.08.2001, as amended from time to time, which prescribes a Tariff Value for Areca Nuts classifiable under CTH 0802.
4.3.9 The rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) applicable to Areca Nuts under CTSH 0802 80 is 100% (Standard) / 90% (Preferential Areas), whereas the rate of BCD applicable under CTH 2008 19 91 is only 30%. It is therefore evident that a substantial revenue implication, in the form of a duty differential of 70 percentage points, arises depending upon the classification adopted, thereby furnishing a strong incentive for importers to seek classification of the impugned goods under CTH 2008 rather than under CTH 0802.
4.3.10 It is further observed that the strategic deployment of the descriptor “Roasted Areca Nuts” by some importers, leveraging the term “roasted” as it appears in the Explanatory Notes to Chapter 20, appears in several cases to be a calculated attempt to artificially situate the goods under CTH 2008 so as to avail the lower duty rate, notwithstanding that the degree of processing undergone may not be sufficient to take the goods out of Chapter 08. This raises legitimate questions warranting verification in the present case as well.
4.3.11 Furthermore, the process described by the applicant itself indicates that even after repeated heating up to 130-150°C over a cycle of 2-3 days in a firewood/palm-kernel based oven, the object of the process, as declared, is only to bring down the moisture content of the areca nuts to “below 10%”. If, after such elaborate and repeated processing, the moisture content is targeted only at a level below 10% (and not appreciably lower), it suggests that the process is primarily directed towards drying/moisture-reduction of the nuts rather than effecting any fundamental change in their character. The product, therefore, remains nothing more than moderately heat-treated/dried areca nuts. Consequently, the so-called “Roasted Areca Nuts” may, on verification, be found to be moderately heat-treated areca nuts, more appropriately classifiable under Chapter 08, specifically under CTSH 0802 80, notwithstanding the elaborate description of the roasting oven and flame temperature furnished by the applicant.
4.3.12 As per Standard 2.3.55 of the FSSAI Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011, the maximum moisture content permitted for Areca Nuts is 7%. In view of this, the applicant’s claim of roasting the de-husked nuts multiple times at high temperatures merely to bring down the moisture content to “below 10%” appears inadequate to satisfy even the food-safety moisture threshold applicable to areca nuts, and is not, by itself, indicative of a distinct “roasted” product. As per the HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 08, nuts may undergo processes such as drying, heating or other treatments undertaken solely to ensure better preservation, facilitate transport or storage, or render the product marketable, without altering their essential character, and such processes do not take the goods out of Chapter 08.
4.3.13 It is pertinent to note that the determination of whether areca nuts have been “roasted” cannot rest solely on moisture content or on the applicant’s description of the oven/firewood process. Roastedness is a multifactorial attribute and must be assessed with reference to other essential chemical parameters, more particularly tannin content, alkaloid content, arecoline content, and protein content. The applicant’s own Annexure I and Annexure II refer to a change in tannin and arecoline content on account of roasting, relying upon a general article on “Estimation of arecoline content of various forms of areca nut preparations by high-pressure thin-layer chromatography”. However, no sample-specific chemical analysis of the goods actually proposed to be imported has been furnished. Arecoline, the principal alkaloid naturally occurring in areca nut, continues to be present even after roasting or heat treatment, albeit in a reduced or chemically altered form, and does not stand eliminated. It is therefore submitted that the mere assertion of a roasting process and temperature, unsupported by consignment-specific chemical analysis, cannot be relied upon to establish that the goods have undergone a transformative process sufficient to alter their essential nature or classification. In the absence of internationally or nationally recognised standards prescribing definitive parameters for “roasting”, and in the absence of any test report of the actual goods proposed to be imported, the applicant’s claim of classification under Chapter 20 remains unsubstantiated.
4.3.14 It is important to note that while chapter headings are provided for ease of reference and do not have legal force in themselves, they do offer valuable guidance in interpretation. As per Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System, the chapter heading of Chapter 20 reads as “Preparations of Vegetables, Fruits, Nuts or other parts of plants.” This indicates that for goods to be classifiable under this Chapter, there should be some degree of preparation beyond mere drying or heat treatment.
4.3.15 Therefore, by applying the Specific vs General Entry Rule 3(a) of the General Interpretative Rules, which states that “the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description.” it is submitted that, subject to verification, the impugned goods, i.e., areca nuts subjected to moderate roasting/heat treatment, may more appropriately be classifiable under Chapter 08, since Chapter Heading 0802 80 specifically covers areca nuts/betel nuts, providing a precise description of the goods in question, as against the general residuary description under CTH 2008.
4.3.16 The applicant in the present application has relied upon the Ruling of this very Authority (CAAR, Mumbai) in Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/39,40&41/2023 dated 07.12.2022 in the matter of M/s Universal Impex, Mumbai, wherein identical goods were held classifiable under CTH 2008 19 20, and has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 01.08.2023 of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II v. Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. and connected appeals (CMA Nos. 600, 1206 & 1750 of 2023), whereby the Department’s appeals against similar Rulings of this Authority came to be dismissed.
4.3.17 At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that while this Commissionerate is conscious of the binding nature of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras qua the parties and goods therein, the said Ruling(s)/judgment were rendered on the basis of the facts, processes and material placed before the Authority/Court in those particular cases.
4.3.18 In the case of M/s Unik Traders, the Hon’ble Madras High Court, vide Order dated 14.10.2025 in W.P. No. 36557 of 2025, allowed clearance of roasted areca nut consignments by following the ratio laid down in the judgment dated 04.03.2025 in W.A. Nos. 3647 & 3648 of 2024 (Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s Universal Impex & M/s Neena Enterprises). It is, however, pertinent to note that the Department has filed a Writ Appeal against the Order dated 14.10.2025 on the ground that the said order mechanically adopts a 10%-moisture-content threshold for determining “roasted areca nut”, without any statutory or scientific basis, and erroneously extends the limited factual findings in the earlier Division Bench judgment to all future cases. The issue is presently sub judice before the Hon’ble Division Bench.
4.3.19 The classification of the goods sought to be imported by the present applicant must, nonetheless, be independently examined and determined strictly in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with the relevant Section Notes, Chapter Notes, and the HSN Explanatory Notes, applied to the specific facts, processes and, more importantly, the actual goods presented for import by the present applicant.
4.3.20 Chapter 08 of the Customs Tariff covers “Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons.” Heading 0802 specifically includes areca nuts. The HSN Explanatory Notes to Chapter 08 clearly provide that the Chapter covers nuts which are fresh or dried, whether or not shelled or peeled, and further clarify that processes such as drying, heating, or mild thermal treatment undertaken solely for the purpose of preservation do not alter the essential character of the nuts so as to exclude them from Chapter 08.
4.3.21 In contrast, Chapter 20 covers “Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants.” Note 1 to Chapter 20 excludes goods of Chapter 08, unless they have been prepared or preserved by processes other than those specified in Chapter 08. Thus, unless the processing results in a substantial transformation giving rise to a product distinct from raw or dried areca nuts, classification under Chapter 20 would not be warranted. In the present case, on the applicant’s own submissions, the process undertaken is directed at reducing moisture content to “below 10%” through repeated cycles of heating and cooling; such a process, without independent verification through testing of the actual samples proposed to be imported, cannot conclusively be said to result in the substantial transformation contemplated for classification under Chapter 20.
4.3.22 All these parameters have to be verified by testing of the samples of the imported goods in the designated Customs Accredited Laboratories to confirm whether the imported goods are Roasted Areca Nuts or not, based on parameters like moisture content, physical characteristics, arecoline content, etc. Only after testing of the goods can it be conclusively determined whether the imported goods are Roasted, Dried or Raw Areca Nuts.
4.3.23 From the foregoing discussion, it is submitted that, in view of the repeated litigation encountered in the assessment and clearance of “Roasted Areca Nuts”, this Commissionerate has faced repeated difficulties in the assessment and clearance of such goods due to the absence of clearly defined standards and parameters to determine the classification. The issue of classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts” has, therefore, already been referred to the National Assessment Centre (NAC) (1 & 1B), Kolkata, as well as vide letter to the CBIC Board, for formulating uniform criteria and standards for classification of areca nuts as raw, dried, or roasted, and for evolving a uniform national assessment practice.
4.3.24 In the instant application, the applicant has merely listed the processes claimed to have been undertaken/proposed to be undertaken in respect of the goods to be imported, without producing any corroborative technical literature, internationally or nationally recognized standards, or consignment-specific scientific/laboratory evidence to establish that the goods would, in fact, satisfy the criteria of being “roasted” at the temperatures stated by them. In this regard, it is submitted that, at the time of importation, representative samples of the imported nuts may be drawn and subjected to appropriate testing by the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate at the stage of Customs Compliance Verification (CCV), prior to Assessment and before grant of Out of Charge (OOC), through a competent Accredited FSSAI laboratory, in order to ascertain whether the goods satisfy the criteria of being “roasted” and to ensure conformity with the declarations made in the import documents. The applicant has also not specified whether the goods proposed to be imported would be in ready-to-eat form, or whether they would require further processing, including addition of salt, sugar, oil, or other additives. No photographs or visual/physical samples of the goods proposed to be imported have been furnished. In the absence of such essential and material particulars, the applicant’s claim that the goods would merit classification under CTH 2008 19 91 remains unsubstantiated at this stage.
4.3.25 It is reiterated that DGFT Notification No. 43/2025-26 dated 15.10.2025 prescribes a Minimum Import Price of Rs. 351/- per kilogram (CIF) for import of Areca Nuts under both ITC (HS) Codes 08028090 and 20081991, and further clarifies that the said MIP is not applicable to imports by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs), units in the SEZ, and imports under the Advance Authorization Scheme. The said Notification, being a trade policy measure regulating value of imports and not a classification provision, does not define or prescribe the manufacturing process, degree of processing, or technical parameters for determining when an areca nut product qualifies as “roasted areca nuts” under ITC (HS) Code 2008 19 91, and accordingly cannot be treated as conclusive on the question of classification, which must be independently determined on the basis of the process actually undergone by the goods, duly verified through testing.
4.3.26 In view of the comprehensive analysis of the statutory provisions presented above, and strict adherence to Rule 1 of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Harmonized System, which unequivocally states that “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes,” the HSN Explanatory Notes, and the relevant judicial precedents, it is submitted that the classification of the impugned goods, i.e., Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole), Roasted Areca Nuts (Split) and Roasted Areca Nuts (Cut), ought to be determined only upon due verification of the actual processes undergone and testing of representative samples by an Accredited Customs/FSSAI laboratory at the time of import, and cannot be conclusively decided merely on the basis of the process narrated in the application, without such verification. Subject to the result of such testing, and in the absence thereof, the goods, being areca/betel nuts subjected at best to moderate heat treatment, would merit classification under Chapter 08, specifically under CTH 0802 80, and not under CTH 2008 19 91 as claimed by the applicant.
5. The aforesaid comments received from the Mundra Customs Commissionerate and Chennai Commissionerate were forwarded to the Applicant for their comments and rebuttal. In response thereto, the Applicant submitted the following reply:
5.1 “Response/Clarification/Corrigendum Submitted by the Applicant in Respect of the Comments of Mundra Customs
5.1.1 Upon perusal of the comments filed by the Jurisdictional Commissionerate, the Applicant submitted that it had come to its notice that, due to an inadvertent typographical and clerical error, the Customs Tariff Heading had been mentioned as CTH 2001 1991.
5.1.2 The Applicant clarified that the aforesaid mention of CTH 2001 1991 was purely an inadvertent typographical and clerical error, which was bona fide and unintentional and had occurred while preparing the application papers. The Applicant further submitted that, at no point of time, did it intend to seek classification of the subject goods under any tariff entry other than CTH 2008 1991. It was further submitted that the issue involved, the description of the goods, the process of manufacture, the legal submissions made, and the relief sought remain unchanged and are exactly the same.
5.1.3 The Applicant further submitted that even the Jurisdictional Commissionerate, in its comments furnished before the Authority for Advance Rulings, had observed that the tariff entry mentioned in the application appeared to be a typographical error, thereby acknowledging that the mistake was merely clerical in nature and did not alter the substance of the application. The Applicant contended that it is a settled principle of law that a bona fide clerical or typographical error should not defeat or prejudice the adjudication of substantive rights, particularly when no prejudice is caused to any party and the nature and scope of the proceedings remain unchanged.
5.1.4 In view of the above, the Applicant most respectfully prayed that the Authority may:
(a) take the aforesaid clarification/corrigendum on record;
(b) read and treat the reference to CTH 2001 1991 in the application as CTH 2008 1991; and
(c) consider and decide the application on merits by treating CTH 2008 1991 as the correct Customs Tariff Heading intended by the Applicant.
5.2 “Rejoinder to the Comments/Objections dated 03.08.2026 filed by the Commissioner of Customs, CHENNAI-II
5.2.1 In response to the comments furnished by the Chennai-II Customs Commissionerate, the Applicant submitted a rejoinder. At the outset, the Applicant submitted that the Department’s comments did not disclose any statutory ground for rejection of the present application. The Applicant stated that the Department had itself accepted that the Applicant possessed a valid Importer Exporter Code (IEC) and was eligible to seek an Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962. The Applicant further submitted that there was no proceeding/application pending against it before Customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court and, therefore, the application was maintainable.
5.2.2 On the issue of classification, the Applicant submitted that the substantive objection of the Department was principally founded upon the proposition that roasted areca nuts should continue to be treated as dried areca nuts falling under Chapter 08. The Applicant contended that this issue had already been considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and that the Department’s contention was contrary to the ratio laid down therein. The Applicant accordingly submitted that the classification sought in the present application ought to be accepted.
5.2.3 The Applicant further submitted that the mere existence of judgments or proceedings concerning other importers could not constitute a statutory bar to the present application, particularly when the Department itself had acknowledged that no proceeding concerning the present Applicant was pending before Customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. The Applicant therefore submitted that the present application was required to be considered on its own merits.
5.2.4 The Applicant drew attention to the HSN Explanatory Note to Heading 2008, which, according to the Applicant, expressly includes almonds, groundnuts, areca (or betel) nuts and other nuts which are dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fat-roasted. The Applicant submitted that the said Explanatory Note directly supported its claim for classification of roasted areca/betel nuts under Heading 2008. The Applicant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II v. Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., wherein, according to the Applicant, the CAAR rulings classifying roasted areca/betel nuts under Chapter 20 were upheld and the HSN Explanatory Notes were recognised as a safe guide for classification. The Applicant also submitted that the Hon’ble High Court had recognised the principle that a specific tariff entry would prevail over a general entry.
5.2.5 With regard to the process undertaken on the subject goods, the Applicant submitted that the process was not merely one of drying or moderate heat treatment. It was stated that the areca nuts were subjected to repeated heating and roasting at approximately 130°C to 150°C, followed by repeated cooling and re-feeding into the oven over a period of approximately 2 to 3 days. The Applicant contended that the aforesaid process constituted roasting and was materially different from a simple drying operation.
5.2.6 The Applicant further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs v. M/s Genuine Spices, CMA (MD) No. 305 of 2024, decided on 28.03.2024, and submitted that similar contentions raised by the Revenue regarding roasting at 130°C-150°C, removal of moisture and the absence of sufficient evidence of roasting had been considered by the Hon’ble High Court. According to the Applicant, the Hon’ble High Court had dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and applied the ratio of Shahnaz Commodities. The Applicant therefore contended that the objections presently raised by the Department were substantially similar to those which had already been considered in the aforesaid proceedings.
5.2.7 The Applicant also addressed the Department’s reliance upon moisture content and the FSSAI standard. It submitted that the food-safety standards prescribed by FSSAI could not, by themselves, be treated as criteria for determining classification under the Customs Tariff unless such standards were specifically incorporated into the tariff. The Applicant contended that the Customs Tariff did not prescribe any specific moisture percentage for determining whether areca nuts were “roasted nuts”. It was further submitted that no statutory threshold relating to arecoline, tannin, protein or any other chemical parameter had been prescribed for determining whether a nut could be classified as a roasted nut.
5.2.8 The Applicant submitted that the Department itself had acknowledged the absence of an internationally or nationally recognised definitive standard prescribing “parameters” for “roasting”. According to the Applicant, in the absence of such a statutory or recognised threshold, no unstated scientific parameter could be introduced as a mandatory condition for classification.
5.2.9 Regarding the Department’s proposal for laboratory testing, the Applicant submitted that the goods covered by the present application were proposed to be imported and that its import activity had not yet commenced. The Applicant contended that requiring a consignment-specific laboratory report at the stage of Advance Ruling would not be practicable, as the very purpose of an Advance Ruling was to provide certainty regarding classification prior to importation. The Applicant submitted that, if considered necessary, Customs could undertake appropriate verification/testing at the time of actual importation; however, such subsequent verification could not, according to the Applicant, be made a precondition for deciding the classification question in the present Advance Ruling application.
5.2.10 The Applicant also rebutted the Department’s objection regarding bulk packing. It submitted that the expression “generally” occurring in the relevant HSN Explanatory Note could not be construed to mean “mandatorily” or “exclusively”. According to the Applicant, the reference to a particular manner of packing in the Explanatory Note was descriptive and could not constitute an additional tariff-classification condition where no such condition was prescribed in the tariff heading itself.
5.2.11 In this regard, the Applicant again relied upon the decision in Genuine Spices and submitted that a similar objection regarding bulk/jumbo-bag packing had been raised by the Revenue therein and had not been accepted by the Hon’ble High Court. The Applicant therefore submitted that the mode of packing could not, by itself, alter the classification of the subject goods where the goods otherwise satisfied the description of the relevant tariff heading.
5.2.12 The Applicant further addressed the Department’s reference to the difference in Basic Customs Duty between CTH 0802 80 and CTH 2008 19 91. It submitted that the quantum of revenue involved under different tariff headings was irrelevant for determining the correct classification of goods. According to the Applicant, classification was required to be determined on the basis of the tariff description, statutory notes, General Rules for Interpretation and relevant HSN Explanatory Notes, and not on the basis of the revenue implication of one classification vis-a-vis another.
5.2.13 The Applicant also objected to the Department’s suggestion that use of the expression “Roasted Areca Nuts” could be a calculated attempt to obtain classification under a lower-duty heading. The Applicant submitted that it had approached the Authority prior to commencement of its proposed imports, had disclosed the process proposed to be undertaken and had sought a lawful Advance Ruling. It further submitted that there was no allegation of suppression, misdeclaration, fabrication or evasion against it and, therefore, such an inference was unwarranted.
5.2.14 The Applicant further submitted that the Department could not distinguish the judgment in Shahnaz Commodities merely on the ground that the judgment was rendered on the facts and material placed before the Authority and the Court in those particular cases. While acknowledging that factual determination was necessarily case-specific, the Applicant submitted that the interpretation of the tariff provisions was a question of law. According to the Applicant, the Hon’ble Madras High Court had laid down principles concerning the distinction between roasting and drying, the relevance of HSN Explanatory Notes and the applicability of the specific-entry-over-general-entry principle.
5.2.15 The Applicant further relied upon the subsequent decision in Genuine Spices and submitted that the said decision demonstrated that the principle laid down in Shahnaz Commodities was not confined to the original applicant or the particular goods involved therein, but had subsequently been applied in another matter concerning classification of roasted areca nuts.
5.2.16 The Applicant also referred to the Department’s observation that repeated disputes concerning classification of roasted areca nuts had arisen and that the issue had been referred to NAC, Kolkata and the Board for formulation of uniform criteria. According to the Applicant, the existence of such administrative uncertainty was itself a reason for invoking the Advance Ruling mechanism and could not constitute a legal bar against an otherwise maintainable application.
5.2.17 With regard to the proposed testing for moisture, physical characteristics, arecoline and other parameters, the Applicant submitted that laboratory testing could establish factual characteristics of a particular consignment but could not create or prescribe a legal definition of “roasted areca nut”. The Applicant contended that, unless the Customs Tariff prescribed a particular scientific threshold, classification could not be made dependent upon compliance with criteria not prescribed by the legislature.
5.2.18 The Applicant further reiterated that although areca nut was specifically mentioned under Chapter 08, the classification of the goods after roasting was required to be examined with reference to the specific tariff treatment available for roasted nuts. The Applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court and submitted that the specific entry covering roasted nuts was required to be preferred over the general entry applicable to dried areca nuts.
5.2.19 In conclusion, the Applicant submitted that it was eligible to seek an Advance Ruling and that there was no statutory bar to consideration of the present application. It further submitted that the HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 2008 expressly recognised roasted areca/betel nuts; that no statutory moisture, arecoline, tannin or protein threshold had been prescribed for determining whether areca nuts were roasted; that the word “generally” in relation to packing could not be construed as a mandatory condition; and that the contentions regarding moderate heat treatment and bulk packing had already been considered in earlier proceedings relied upon by the Applicant.
5.2.20 The Applicant accordingly requested that the comments/objections furnished by the Department be rejected and that the subject goods, namely Roasted Areca Nuts (Whole), Roasted Areca Nuts (Split) and Roasted Areca Nuts (Cut), proposed to be imported by the Applicant, be held to be appropriately classifiable under CTH 2008 19 91. The Applicant also requested that no non-statutory moisture, arecoline, tannin, protein or other laboratory threshold be introduced as a precondition for such classification and that the objection based on the mode of bulk packing also be rejected.
6. Records of Personal Hearing
6.1 A personal hearing was granted to the Applicant on 15.07.2026. The Authorised Representative of the Applicant appeared on the scheduled date and reiterated the submissions made in the written application and subsequent submissions. During the course of the personal hearing, he specifically requested that an Advance Ruling be issued in respect of the classification of the subject Roasted Areca Nuts under CTH 2008 19 91. He submitted that an earlier Advance Ruling had classified the subject goods under CTH 2008 19 20, whereas the tariff entry presently applicable to the goods is CTH 2008 19 91. He further submitted that the change in the tariff sub-heading has resulted in practical difficulties for the Applicant at the time of importation and, therefore, requested that the present Advance Ruling may specifically determine the classification of the subject goods under CTH 2008 19 91.
6.2 Nobody appeared for PH from the Department.
7. Discussions and Findings:
7.1. The applicant submitted that the issue raised in the present application has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court, which upheld the ruling of the Authority regarding the classification of the subject goods. In this regard, the relevant portion of sub-section (2) of Section 28-I of the Customs Act, 1962 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 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,”
8. In the present case, the precise issue relating to the classification of roasted areca/betel nuts has already been adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide Judgment dated 01.08.2023 in C.M.A. Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023 in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate v. M/s Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Universal Impex and M/s Neena Enterprises. The said decision, concerning the classification of the subject goods, was subsequently considered in W.A. Nos. 3647 and 3648 of 2024, wherein the ruling of the Authority classifying the said goods under CTH 20081920, corresponding to CTH 20081991 under the present Customs Tariff, was upheld.
9. It is further observed that this Authority, as well as the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Delhi, has already pronounced several rulings in respect of the proposed import of the subject goods, namely, “Roasted Areca Nuts”, through various major and minor ports/Inland Container Depots across the country. The classification issue involved in those applications is the same as, or substantially similar to, the issue which has already been adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in its judgment dated 01.08.2023. In the instant application also, the question raised by the applicant concerns the classification of the same goods and does not disclose any material distinguishing feature or new factual circumstance warranting a different consideration.
10. In view of the foregoing, I find that the question raised by the applicant is the same as the question which has already been decided by an Hon’ble Court. Though question of classification of Roasted Areca Nut decided by Hon’ble High Court of Madras dated 01.08.2023 is not in case filed by Applicant himself, however, as per records perused and facts produced before me, it is seen that the matter abundantly falls within ambit of Section 28-I (2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and said provision can be safely applied to application and question raised thereof.
11. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and on examination of the records of the case, I find that the question raised in the present application, insofar as it relates to the classification of the subject “Roasted Areca Nut/Betel Nut”, has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide judgment dated 01.08.2023, as referred to above.
11. Accordingly, in terms of the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the application is disallowed and disposed of accordingly.
