Case Law Details
In re Classic Enterprises (CAAR Mumbai)
The Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR), Mumbai considered an application filed by M/s. Classic Enterprises seeking an advance ruling on the classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts/Roasted Betel Nuts” under the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The application was received on 01.04.2026 under Section 28F1(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The applicant stated that it intended to import roasted areca nuts or roasted betel nuts from suppliers in Indonesia through Tuticorin Port. According to the applicant, edible nuts and similar plant products fall under Chapter Heading 2008 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and roasted nuts are specifically classifiable under Tariff Item 2008 1991. The applicant contended that the goods proposed to be imported would fall under HS Code 2008 1991 because roasting changes the product classification, as reflected in the HSN Explanatory Notes. The applicant also relied on judicial precedents holding that HSN Explanatory Notes are dependable guides for tariff classification.
The CAAR office forwarded the application to the jurisdictional Customs Commissionerate at Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu, seeking comments and records in relation to the application. However, no response was received from the Commissionerate.
During the personal hearing held on 28.04.2026, the applicant’s advocate reiterated that the imported goods were roasted areca nuts with moisture content below 6% and subjected to roasting at temperatures between 130°C and 150°C. The applicant argued that the issue stood settled by the Madras High Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II Commissionerate versus Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd., Neena Enterprises and Universal Impex, which had upheld earlier advance rulings on the matter. The applicant further submitted that the goods merited classification under Customs Tariff Item 2008 1991 and sought exemption of duty under Notification No. 46/2011. No representative appeared on behalf of the department during the hearing.
CAAR examined Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that the Authority shall not allow an application where the issue raised is already pending or has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.
The Authority observed that the precise issue concerning 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. It also noted that both CAAR Mumbai and CAAR Delhi had issued multiple rulings on similar applications involving roasted areca nuts based on the same High Court decision.
CAAR held that the issue raised by the applicant was identical to a matter already decided by a Court and therefore attracted the statutory bar contained in proviso (b) to Section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the Authority decided not to allow the application and rejected it.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Classic Enterprises (IEC No.: 5310000542) (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 01.04.2026 along with its enclosures in terms of Section 28F1(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/Roasted Betel Nuts” 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. Classic Enterprises (IEC No.: 5310000542). They intend to import “Roasted Areca Nuts/Roasted Betel Nuts” at Tuticorin Port from one or several foreign suppliers based in Indonesia (an ASEAN member State). 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 and 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 Areca Nuts/Roasted Betel Nuts 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, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Thoothukudi, Tamilnadu calling upon them to furnish the relevant records with comments, if any, in respect of said application on 10.04.2026 & 28.04.2026. However, no reply has been received from Jurisdictional Commissionerate till date.
4. Records of Personal Hearing
4.1 A personal hearing was held on 28.04.2026 at 03.00 PM wherein, Shri Ramachandran, Advocate appeared for the Personal Hearing in the matter on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated that the contention filed by the applicant that the subject import goods are Roasted Areca Nuts (moisture content <6%; 130°C-150°C roasting). He contended that the issue is settled in view of Hon’ble Madras High Court order upholding the Advance Ruling in the matter of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai II Commissionerate Vs M/s Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd., M/s. Neena Enterprises and M/s Universal Impex. He submitted that the classification merit consideration under CTI 20081991. They want to import the goods from Indonesia as per Notf. No. 46/2011 and seek exemption of duty.
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 281 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 of Customs, 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
