In re AS Spices (CAAR Delhi)
Summary: The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi, rejected three applications filed by AS Spices seeking clarity on the classification of Roasted Areca Nut (Whole), Roasted Areca Nut (Cut) and Roasted Areca Nut (Split) proposed to be imported into India. The applications, dated 01.07.2026 and registered under Serial No. 51-53/2026, were submitted under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962. At the personal hearing on 27.08.2026, the applicant’s authorised representative reiterated the submissions through virtual appearance. The Authority first examined maintainability under Section 28-I(2), explaining that the statutory bar covers both questions already pending in the applicant’s own case and questions identical to matters already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. It distinguished the former as applicant-specific and the latter as applicant-agnostic. The Authority observed that advance rulings facilitate trade by reducing litigation and providing certainty, while permitting fresh rulings on settled questions could create conflicting decisions.
Relying on Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC), it emphasised the obligation of subordinate authorities to follow higher judicial pronouncements. It found the classification question squarely covered by the Madras High Court judgment identified in the order as M/s Shahnaz International Pvt. Ltd., 2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.). Accordingly, applying Section 28-I(2)(b) and judicial discipline, CAAR declined to pronounce a fresh classification ruling and rejected the applications.
Cases Discussed
- 2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.) — M/s Shahnaz International Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court; identified in the supplied order under this name; the linked judgment is titled Commissioner of Customs Vs Shahnaz Commodities International P. Ltd.) — treated by CAAR as squarely covering the roasted areca nut classification question, attracting the bar under Section 28-I(2)(b).
- 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC) — Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. (Supreme Court) — relied upon for the binding nature of precedent and the obligation of lower authorities to follow higher judicial pronouncements.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, DELHI
M/s AS Spices, 2151/3C, Ground Floor, Back Side New Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110008 (herein referred to as “applicant™), having IEC No. ABXFA8895K submitted three applications dated 01.07.2026 before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (herein referred to as CAAR, New Delhi) for obtaining Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962, to seek clarity on the classification of ‘Roasted Areca Nut (Whole); Roasted Areca Nut (Cut) and Roasted Areca Nut (Split)’ on the import to India. The applications were accordingly registered under Serial No. 51-53/2026 dated 01.07.2026.
2 Personal hearing in the said applications was held on 27.08.2026, wherein authorized representative, Sh. Harish Kohli, Advocate appeared in virtual mode and reiterated the submissions made in the applications.
3. Findings, Discussion & Conclusion
3:1. I have gone through the applications of advance ruling and relevant provisions in this regard. I consider it necessary to first address the question of maintainability of the present application. Section 28-I (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the admissibility of applications before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings. The relevant portions of that provision reads as under:
“28-1. Procedure on receipt of application: (1) on receipt of an application, the Authority shall cause copy thereof to be forwarded to the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs) and, if necessary, call upon him to furnish the relevant records:
Provided that where any records have been called for by the Authority in any case, such records shall, as soon as possible, be returned to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs)
(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 question raised in the application is, where the
(a) already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court,
(b) the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.”
3.2 From the above, | find that Section 28-1 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the admissibility of applications before the Custom Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR). The first proviso to Section 28-I (2) stipulates that the Authority shall not allow the application where the question raised in the application is (@) already pending in the applicant’s case before any officer of customs, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court; or (b) the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.
3.3 Further, I understand that the entire mechanism of advance rulings is a trade facilitation measure introduced with the aim of reducing litigation and providing certainty to assessees, consistent with Article 3 of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. The WTO framework itself recognizes two distinct situations where advance rulings may be declined: (a) when the issue is pending in the applicant’s own case, and (b) when the issue has already been decided by an appellate tribunal or court. The first is applicant-specific, whereas the second is applicant-agnostic. This distinction is necessary because advance rulings are implemented by Departmental officers who are duty bound to apply the law as settled in their jurisdiction. In India, this position is fortified by the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., 1991 (55) ELT 433 (SC), which underscores the binding nature of precedent and the obligation of lower authorities to follow higher judicial pronouncements.
3.4. It is a settled principle of law that rulings of the Tribunal and Courts are binding on subordinate authorities. The CAAR, being a statutory authority under the Customs Act, is equally bound by such precedents. To allow fresh applications on questions already adjudicated by higher judicial fora would risk the creation of conflicting rulings and introduce uncertainty, an outcome contrary to the very object of the advance ruling mechanism. Clause (b) therefore operates as a statutory reinforcement of judicial discipline, making it explicit that once a question has been conclusively determined by the Tribunal or Courts, the Authority cannot re- adjudicate the same issue at the behest of another party.
3.5 In the instant case, I observed that the question raised regarding the classification of roasted areca nuts in the present applications is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Shahnaz International Pvi. Lid. [2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.)]. Therefore, in adherence to judicial discipline and binding precedent and in terms of Section 28-1(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, I refrain from pronouncing any ruling on the question of classification raised in the instant applications.
3.6 As discussed above, in terms of Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and in adherence to the principles of judicial discipline and binding precedent, I deem it appropriate to refrain from pronouncing any ruling on the question raised in the instant application regarding classification of the subject goods and therefore, the instant applications are liable to be, and are accordingly, rejected.
4. The application are not allowed and disposed of accordingly.
