Case Law Details
In re Golden Harvest International (CAAR Mumbai)
In In re Golden Harvest International, the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai examined an application seeking an advance ruling on the classification of imported roasted betel nut/areca nut (whole and cut) and the consequential eligibility for customs duty exemption. The applicant proposed to import roasted areca nuts processed through de-husking, drying, repeated high-temperature roasting above 150°C, and moisture reduction below 6–7%, and sought classification under tariff item 2008 19 91 (“Other roasted nuts and seeds”) following amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2025. The applicant relied on the Customs Tariff Act, General Rules for Interpretation, HSN Explanatory Notes, prior Supreme Court and High Court precedents, and earlier advance rulings, contending that roasting is distinct from drying or boiling and shifts classification from Chapter 08 to Chapter 20. It was further argued that the omission of tariff item 2008 19 20 and substitution with 2008 19 91 constituted a change in law requiring a fresh ruling.
The jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs objected to the maintainability of the application, invoking the proviso to section 28-I(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that the classification issue of roasted betel/areca nut had already been conclusively decided by the Madras High Court. After considering detailed submissions, statutory provisions, tariff structure, and judicial precedents, the Authority held that it was statutorily barred from issuing a ruling where the question raised had already been decided by a Court. The Authority found that the Finance Act, 2025 amendments merely renumbered and restructured the tariff at the eight-digit level without altering the substantive scope, heading, sub-heading, Chapter Notes, or classification principles. The ratio laid down by the Madras High Court—that roasting is distinct from drying and places areca nut under Chapter 20—continued to apply despite the renumbering. As the issue was identical in substance and law to one already settled by a constitutional court, the bar under section 28-I(2)(b) squarely applied. The Authority also noted that eligibility to exemption under notification No. 41/2019-Customsdepended on satisfaction of conditions to be examined by the proper officer at the time of import and did not warrant an advance ruling. Accordingly, the Authority refrained from issuing any ruling on classification and disposed of the application.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, MUMBAI
M/s. Golden Harvest International (1EC No. ABCFG4449C) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’) filed an application (CAAR-1) for advance ruling before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, Mumbai (CAAR in short). The said application was received in the secretariat of the CAAR, Mumbai on 22.09.2025 along with its enclosures in terms of Section 2811 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ also). The Applicant is seeking advance ruling on following questions; –
(i) Whether the goods sought to be imported, namely, Roasted I3etelnut/Areca Nut(whole/cut) arc classifiable under the I IS Code 20081991 as per Schedule-1 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975?
(ii) Whether subjecting the betelnut/areca nut to the processes detailed infra would qualify the products to be described as Roasted I3etelnut/Areca nut in order to classify the same under the LIS Code 20081991 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other chapter heading?
2. Submission by Applicant-
The applicant is a firm in the name and style of M/s. Golden Harvest International having IF No. ABCFG4449C. Further. the applicant intends to import “Roasted Areca Nut (whole)/ and Roasted Areca Nuts Cut” from Burma, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. As per the present scheme of Classi fication 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 classi lied under the Tariff Item 20081991:
2008 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 Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together:
20081100 — Ground-nuts
2008 19 –Other including mixtures:
2008 19 10 — Cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted
—Makhana:
2008 19 21 —- Popped
2008 19 22 —- Flour and Powder
2008 19 29 —- Other
—Other
2008 19 91 —- Other Roasted Nuts and Seeds
20081992 —-Other Nuts, otherwise prepared or preserved
2008 19 93 —-Other roasted and fried vegetable products
2008 19 99 —-Other 2008 20 00 Pineapples 2008 30 – Citrus fruit:
200830 10 — Orange
2008 30 90 — Other
2.1 The Applicant further submitted that the process of ‘roasting’ is not defined in the Customs Tariff nor in the I ISN Explanatory Note nor in any of the Sections/Chapters. In the absence of such a definition, recourse is sought to the dictionary and other literature meaning of the word ‘roasting’ that is defined as follows:
Merriam-Webster:
a.: to cook by exposing to dry heat (as in an oven or before a fire) or by surrounding with hot embers, sand, or stones
b: to dry and parch by exposure to heat.
Britannica:
Roasting, cooking, primarily of meats but also of corn ears, potatoes, or other vegetables thus
prepared, by exposure to dry radiant heat either over an open .fire, within a reflecting-surface oven, or in some cases within surrounding hot embers, sand, or stones.
2.2 With this background information about the process of roasting, the process involved in the proposed import items is detailed as follows:
The roasting of seeds of fresh areca nuts wholly or cut into two pieces are roasted by the following steps: –
A. De-husking the raw betellareca nut and drying the same before being fed into the roasting oven;
B. Feeding the fresh areca nuts into a seed roasting oven, heating at the temperature of more than 150 deg. C;
C. Thking the areca nuts out of the oven, cooling at room temperature and feeding back into the oven, heating and roasting again, and performing this cycle until the moisture content of the areca nuts is less than 6 percent; and
Further, the applicant has submitted that, by virtue of the ‘roasting’ carried out through the processes detailed hereinabove, the betel nut/areca nut proposed to be imported by the applicant would merit classification under I IS Code 2008 19 91 as “Other Roasted Nuts and Seeds.” The present application has therefore been filed before this Authority seeking an authoritative ruling on the said issue of classification.
3. Applicants’ interpretation of Law/Facts: –
3.1 The appellant submitted that the classification of items is governed by the scheme of classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with the “The General Rules for The Interpretation of Import Tariff’. As per the statutory scheme of 1975 Act, ‘roasted nuts’ arc specifically classifiable under thel-IS Code 20081991′.
Further, in terms of Rule.1 of “The General Rules for The Interpretation of Import Tariff’ reproduced below, classification of the item shall be determined according to the terms of the heading and any relative section or chapter notes:
1. The titles of Sections, Chapters and sub-chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, .classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the .f011owing provisions.
Therefore, both by the statutory provisions of the Act as well as Rules for classification, the item proposed to be imported, namely, ‘roasted areca nut’ are appropriately classifiable under the I IS Code 20081991 only.
3.2 The Applicant further submitted that the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System generally referred to as the “Harmonized System” or simply “I-IS” is a multipurpose international product nomenclature developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO). The system is used by more than 200 member countries and economies as a basis for their Customs tariffs and for the collection of international trade statistics. The official interpretation of the I IS is given in the Explanatory Notes published by the WCO and offers a safe guide to interpret and classify the commodity under consideration.
As per the HSN Explanatory Notes to the Chapter Heading 2008 given below, ‘Dry Roasted Areca (or Betel) Nuts’ are specifically covered under the Chapter Heading 2008:
This heading covers fruit, nuts and other edible parts ofplants, 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:
(1) Almonds, ground-nuts, 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.
3.3 Hence from the above, the Applicant submitted that the proposed item to be imported, ‘roasted betelnut/ areca nut (whole/cut) arc classifiable under the HS Code 2008 1991 by virtue of mere roasting as clearly given in the IISN Explanatory Note by the product name. Although the aspect of classification of ‘roasted betelnut/ areca nut’ is unambiguously clear by the scheme of classification as well as 1–ISN Explanatory Note to the relevant Chapter Heading, the Applicant craves to submit 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
2015 (318) E.L.T 529 (S.C)
iii. Collector of Central Excise, Shillong Versus Wood Craft Products Ltd Reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T 23 (S.C)
Accordingly, the Applicant submitted that by the very description of the item as ‘Roasted 13etelnut/areca nut’ the item clearly falls under the HS Code 2008 1991 in terms of Rule 1 of the GIR strongly supported by the relevant I ISN EN.
3.4 The Applicant submitted that both as per the Scheme of Classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the Chapter Heading 2008 and the USN Explanatory Notes reproduced above, the items classifiable under the Chapter Heading 2008 should not be elsewhere specified or included nor prepared or preserved otherwise than by any of the processes specified in other Chapters or in the preceding headings of this Chapter. Examined in this context, the competing entries for the item namely, ‘betel nut/ areca nut’ arc the I IS Code 08029000 and 20081991. For proper appreciation of facts, relevant entries, Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes of these Chapters are juxtaposed and examined as below:
A. UNDER THE HS CODE 08029000: While Chapter 8 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 deals with ‘edible fruits and nuts’, that include areca/betel nut, Chapter 21 deals with ‘miscellaneous edible preparations. A closer reading of the Chapter Note and the General Explanatory Note to the Chapter 08 reproduced below would convey that only ‘nuts’ that arc processed for preservation and as the manner prescribed therein are claSsilled under the Chapter 08.
Chapter 8
Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons
Notes.
1. This Chapter does not cover inedible nuts or fruits.
2. Chilled fruits and nuts are to be classified in the same headings as the corresponding fresh fruits and nuts.
3. Dried ‘twit or dried nuts of this Chapter may be partially rehydrated, or treated far the following purposes:
a. For additional preservation or stabilisation (for example, by moderate heat treatment, sulphuring, the addition of sorbic acid or potassium sorbet),
b. lb 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.
From the above, it is clear that the nuts classifiable under this Chapter should be treated only for the purpose of additional preservation or stabilisation or, to improve or maintain their appearance. In effect, any treatment that is aimed at other than or beyond preservation/stabilisation or improve/maintain appearance automatically makes the product ineligible for classification under the Chapter 08 itself. This has been legibly brought out in the USN General Explanatory Note to the Chapter 08 reproduced below:
GENERAL:
This Chapter covers fruit, nuts and peel of citrus fruit or melons (including watermelons), generally intended for human consumption (whether as presented or after processing). They may be fresh (including chilled), frozen (whether or not previously cooked by steaming or boiling in water or containing added sweetening matter) or dried (including dehydrated, evaporated or freeze-dried); provided they are unsuitable for immediate consumption in that state, they may be provisionally preserved (e.g., by sulphur dioxide gas, in brine, in sulphur water or in other preservative solutions).
The term “chilled” means that the temperature ofa product has been reduced, generally to around 0°C, without the product being frozen. However some products, such as melons and certain citrus fruit, may be considered to be chilled when their temperature has been reduced to and maintained at I-10°C. The expression “frozen” means that the product has been cooled to below the product ‘s freezing point until it is frozen throughout. Fruit and nuts of this Chapter may be whole, sliced, chopped, shredded, stoned, pulped, grated, peeled or shelled.
It should be noted that homogenisation, by itself does not qualify a product of this Chapter, for classification as a preparation of Chapter 20.
The addition of small quantities of sugar does not ciffect the classification of fruit in this Chapter. The Chapter also includes dried fruit (e.g., dates and prunes), the exterior of which may be covered with a deposit of dried natural sugar thus giving the fruit an appearance somewhat similar to that of the crystallised fruit of heading 2006.
Ikwever, this Chapter does not cover fruit preserved by osmotic dehydration. The expression “osmotic dehydration” refers to a process whereby pieces of fruit are subjected to prolonged soaking in concentrated sugar syrup so that much of the water and the natural sugar of the fruit is replaced by sugar from the syrup. The fruit may subsequently be air-dried to further reduce the moisture content. Such fruit is classified in Chapter 20 (heading 20.08).
Applicant further submitted that from the above, it is clear that none of the processes referred above is employed in the product proposed to be imported. Further, the fruits air-dried to reduce moisture itself excludes it from the purview of Chapter 08 and places the same under the Chapter 20. Therefore, the processes involved in the proposed import item, ‘Roasted Areca Nut (Whole/split)’ is completely different from the preservative processes for the products Falling under the Chapter Heading 0802 and hence would not fall under the said Chapter.
3.5 The Applicant further submitted that the vital question as to whether the roasted nuts would fall under the Chapter Heading 0802 or Chapter Heading 2008 was affirmatively answered in favour of the later (CT! I 2008) by the I lon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa Vs Phil Corporation Ltd reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T 9 (S.C). Similarly, while answering whether ‘roasted peanut’ would fall under Chapter 21 or under Chapter 20, the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Amrit Agro Industries Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad reported in 2 S.C) held that roasted nuts arc classifiable under the Chapter 20.
vehemently argued in favour of classifying the ‘roasted nuts’ under Chapter 20 and the same was upheld. Flence, the settled position of law is that nuts falling under Chapter 08 would be classified under Chapter 20, if the same is subjected to the process of roasting.
3.6 The applicant also submitted that the issue on hand has been unequivocally dealt with by the I lon’ble High Court of Madras in its order in the case of Commissioner Of Customs. Chennai-II Versus Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd reported in 2023 (386) L.L.T 214 (Mad), wherein the classification of roasted betelnut has been held to be classifiable under the HS Code 2008 1920 as per the then scheme of classification under the Customs Tariff Act. 1975. The said order of the Hon’ble High Court has been accepted by the government and thus attained finality. Despite this settled position of law regarding classification of roasted betelnut under the Chapter Heading 2008, filing of this application is necessitated due to the change in the Tariff Item pertaining to other roasted nuts and seeds as the same is now brought under the new entry, 2008 1991 as per the Finance Bill, 2025 given below:
(3) in Chapter 20,
(i) after Sub-heading Notes, the following Supplementary Note
shall be inserted, namely..
Supplementary Note:
1. For the purposes of Tariff items 2008 19 21 and 2008 19 29, the term makhana means the seed of plant Euryale ferox Salish. and also, commonly known as gorgon nut or fox nut.’ ;
(ii) in heading 2008, for tariff items 2008 19 20 to 2008 19 90 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely: –
—Makhana:
2008 19 21 —- Popped
2008 19 22 —- Flour and Powder
2008 19 29 —- Other
— Other:
2008 19 91 —- Other Roasted Nuts and Seeds
2008 19 92 —- Other Nuts, otherwise prepared or preserved
2008 19 93 —- Other roasted and fried vegetable products
2008 19 99 —- Other
2008 20 00 – Pineapples
2008 30 – Citrus fruit:
200830 10 – Orange
200830 90 – Other
Further, applicant submitted that the introduction of new entry, 2008 1920 has not altered the settled fact that the roasted betelnut is classifiable under the 11S Code 2008 1991, except there is a change in the tariff rate 150% instead of 30% that was in vogue prior to the Finance Bill 2025.
3.7 The applicant also submitted that by virtue of classification under the I IS Code 2008 1991, the roasted betelnut is eligible for concessional rate of duty under SI. No. 172 of the Notification of Customs No. 46/2011 dated 01.06.2011 as amended by the Notification No. 41/2019 dated 31.12.2019, the relevant entry of the same is given below:
| SI. No. | Chapter I leading, Sub-heading & Tariff Item | Description | Rate (in% unless otherwise specified) |
| 172 | 200710 to 200820 | All goods | 0% |
Therefore, the item proposed to be imported is eligible for the benefit of duty under SI. No. 172 of thenotification No. 41/2019-Customs, dated the 31st December, 2019 subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed therein.
3.8 Further, applicant submitted that the First Bench of the I Ion’ble High Court of Madras in W.A. Nos. 3647 & 3648 of 2024 in the case of Universal Impex, held that the betelnut products having moisture content below 10% shall be regarded as roasted provided that the moisture limit complies with the moisture content given in the Advance Ruling Application.
Accordingly, the Applicant undertakes to brought roasted betelnuts having moisture below 7% thereby making sure that only roasted betelnut is imported.
I lence, the applicant has claimed their eligibility on all relevant aspects, and the rationale for classifying the roasted betel nuts under CTH 2008, along with their eligibility for the benefit of duty exemption under SI. No. 172 of Customs notification No. 41/2019-Customs, dated the 31st December, 2019
Further, the applicant has requested that, after due consideration of the facts and legal provisions placed on record, this Authority may be pleased to rule in favour of the applicant by determining the classification of roasted betel nut/areca nut (whole/cut) under 1-1S Code 2008 19 91 and by confirming the item’s eligibility for the benefit under notification No. 41/2019-Customs, as prayed for, or to pass any other ruling as this Authority may deem fit in the interest of justice.
4. Applicants ‘additional submission:
During the course of the hearing, the learned Advocate for M/s. Golden I larvest International Tuticorin, submitted an additional written submission dated 12.11.2025.
4.1 Vide the additional submission the applicant has submitted that advance rulings were earlier issued to various applicants wherein the subject goods, namely roasted areca nuts, were ruled to classify under CTI-1 2008 1920 as ‘Other roasted nuts and seeds’. Subsequently, the Finance Act, 2025 has omitted CTI-1 2008 1920 and replaced it with CTI-1 2008 1991 bearing the same description of ‘Other roasted nuts and Seeds’. Accordingly, the earlier rulings require modification/clarification in light of this statutory amendment, since tariff item 2008 1920 is no longer available for practical application at the time of import; accordingly, the application is filed in vague of omission of tariff item 2008 1920 by Finance Act, 2025.
4.2 Further, it was informed that in the case of Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd., the CAAR (Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/85,86/2025-26 dated 30.09.2025) refrained from issuing a ruling by invoking the proviso to Section 28-1 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that the Flon’ble Iligh Court of Madras had already held roasted areca nuts classifiable under CTI1 2008 1920. Further, it is submitted that this reasoning is flawed. The I ligh Court’s ruling was tied to the now-repealed tariff item 2008 1920. Once Parliament has omitted that entry, reliance on it for current imports is not possible. The present question concerns classification under 2008 1991, which was never decided by the Court. I fence, it is submitted that the bar under proviso to Section 28-1 (2) may not apply.
4.3 Applicability of Section 28-J(2) and Nature of Tariff Schedule as Law -Section 28-J(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that an advance ruling remains binding unless there is a change in law or facts. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975, including its First Schedule, is itself statutory law enacted by Parliament. Any amendment to tariff entries by the Finance Act, including omission, renumbering or substitution, constitutes a ‘change in law’.
Accordingly, the omission of CTI 12008 1920 and insertion of CTI 12008 1991 is a legislative change, even if Section Notes of Chapter 20 remain unaltered. By Operation of Section 28-J(2), the earlier advance ruling cannot be enforced literally. A fresh ruling is required under the new tariff entry.
4.4 While the operative portion of the Madras High Court judgment applied to CTI 12008 1920, its ratio decidendi that roasting is distinct from drying/boiling and moves areca nuts from Chapter 8 to Chapter 20 remains valid. This interpretive principle must now be applied to the successor entry 2008 1991. The I ligh Court has not adjudicated 2008 1991, and therefore Section 28-1 (2) does not bar this Authority from issuing a ruling.
4.5 Further, they have submitted that from a practical standpoint, classification under tariff item 2008 1920 cannot be used any longer since that entry does not exist in the current Customs Tariff. Customs officers at the port cannot assess Bills of Entry under a repealed heading. Importers require certainty under the prevailing tariff item 2008 1991. Refusing to rule leaves a legal vacuum, defeating the very purpose of the advance ruling scheme.
Moreover, if the I lon’ble Authority were to hold that omission of 2008 1920 does not amount to a change in law, then by virtue of Section 28-J(2), the earlier ruling must still be binding. This would mean that a ruling based on a repealed entry (2008 1920) continues to operate, which is impossible in practice and contrary to Section 28-J(2). An advance ruling cannot survive in respect of a tariff item that no longer exists. Such an interpretation would render Section 28-J(2) nugatory. Therefore, the correct interpretation is that the omission and substitution of the tariff entry by the Finance Act, 2025 is a change in law, necessitating a fresh ruling.
4.6 Applicant has also submitted that in the matter of M/s Soham Impex (CAARJMumbai, Ruling Nos. CAAR/Mum/ARC/49-54/2025-26 dated 23.07.2025), & M/s. Kings Snacks (CAAR/Mumbai, Ruling No CAAR/Mum/ARC/87/2025-26 dated 06.10.2025 the 1-lon’ble Authority examined classification of roasted cashew, almond, pista and areca nuts under the amended tariff. The ruling specifically recognized tariff item 2008 19 91 (“Other roasted nuts and seeds”) as the successor entry to 20081920.
-The Authority reaffirmed that roasting is distinct from drying/boiling and that roasted areca nuts, when genuinely roasted (moisture below 7% as per Madras High Court in Universal Impex), fall under Chapter 20 and not Chapter 8.
-While the application was partly rejected because the applicant itself admitted moisture of 10 15% (placing its goods back in Chapter 8), the principle remains that properly roasted areca nuts are classifiable under 2008 19 91.
-Thus, even after the Finance Act, 2025 amendments, the Authority has recognized 2008 19 91 as the operative heading for roasted nuts, including areca nut, whenever the factual test of roasting is satisfied.
This ruling demonstrates continuity of legal reasoning from earlier rulings/I-IC judgments under 2008 1920, and confirms that the correct approach is to apply the same ratio to the substituted entry 2008 19 91.
4.7 Applicant also submitted that classification cannot be frozen under repealed or residuary entries where a specific substituted entry exists. The correct course is to apply the ratio to the new entry. Hence, while the ratio of the Madras Iligh Court continues to apply, a fresh ruling must be given under 2008 1991.
In view of the above submissions, the applicant has requested for issuing a ruling confirming classification of roasted areca nuts under CTII 2008 1991; or pass any Ruling as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
5. Port of Import and reply from jurisdictional Commissioncrate: The applicant in their CAAR-1 indicated that they intend to import the subject goods from the jurisdiction of Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissional, Customs, House, Tuticorin — 628 004 Tamil Nadu. The application was forwarded to the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Customs I louse, Tuticorin — 628 004 Tamil Nadu for their comments on 29.09.2025.
Further, vide reply letter dated 24.11.2025, they have submitted as under:
They have referred relevant portion of sub-section (2) of Section 28-1 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides as follows:
“(2) The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called*, 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 applicants 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. –
In the present case, it is observed that an identical issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CMA No. 600/2023, CMA No. 1206/2023 and CMA No. 1750/2023, dated 01.08.2023.
The Hon”ble Court went to analyse the various aspects in determining classification and summed up that:
a. Roasting is a process treated to be distinct from the from the process of boiling or drying, in fixing the classification in respect of betel/areca nut under CTN.
b. Roasted betel/areca nuts having been specifically clasp/.ied under CT!! 2008 19 20, the attempt to clas.siA, under CHI 080280 would fall foul of the settled rule of classification that specific entry would prevail over general entry
c. The HSN Explanatory Notes are normally a safe guide in determining classification under CTIL Roasted betel/areca nut having been mentioned in 2008 19 20 under USN.
d. When there is a specific entry covering a product/ commodity, the test of common parlance is irrelevant in determining classification.
e. There is considerable force in the submission that the Classification as far as must be in the submission must be in conformity and in consonance with the USN explanatory Notes.
Further they have submitted that in view of forgoing ad in exercise ofthe powers vested in section 28-1 of the Customs Act, 1962, various application have already been rejected by different CAAR ruling authorities. The CAAR may not be entertain such applications considering that the matter has already been decided by the I lon’ble high Court of Madras.
6. Details of Personal Hearing: – A personal hearing in the matter was conducted on 12.11.2025 at 03PM. Shri Murugan, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the applicant. During the hearing, he reiterated the contentions filed with the application and submitted that the subject imported goods are roasted arcca nut/roasted betel nut, which is clearly distinct from raw betel/areca nut falling under CTI I 0802 and merit classification under the revised tariff entry 2008 19 91, under the category “other roasted nuts and seeds.”
He relied upon the IISN Explanatory Notes to Chapter I leading 2008. Ile also relied upon the case law in the matter of M/s Shahnaz Commodities and Others (Madras IIigh Court) and order of I lon’ble Madras I ligh Court in the matter of M/s Universal Impex in W.A. Nos. 3647 and 3648 of 2024.1Ie further contended that the moisture content of the subject roasted areca nuts is below 7%. Ile also seeks benefits under sr. No. 172 ofnotification No. 41/2019-Customs, dated the 31st December, 2019
Nobody appeared for Pll in the matter from department side.
Discussion and Findings
7. I have carefully considered the application filed by M/s. Golden I larvest International, the detailed written submissions made by the applicant, the additional submissions filed during the course of hearing, the oral arguments advanced by the learned Advocate during the personal hearing, and the categorical objections raised by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs, ‘l’uticorin. I have also examined the relevant statutory provisions, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff, the IISN Explanatory Notes, and the binding judicial precedents placed on record.
7.1 The questions raised in the present application pertain to the classification of Roasted Betelnut / Areca Nut (whole/cut) under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, more specifically whether the same merits classification under tariff item 2008 19 91 — “Other roasted nuts and seeds”, and consequential eligibility to exemption under SI. No. 172 ofnotification No. 41/2019-Customs, dated the 31st December, 2019
7.2 At the outset, I note that the questions raised fall within the ambit of Section 2811(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, as they pertain to classification of goods and interpretation of an exemption notification. The applicant is a holder of a valid Importer Exporter Code and qualifies as an “applicant” under Section 28E(c) of the Customs Act, 1962.
7.3 However, before proceeding to examine the merits of classification, it is imperative to consider the statutory limitation placed upon this Authority by the proviso to Section 28-1 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which reads as under:
“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; or
b. the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.”
7.4 The proviso to Section 28-1(2)(b) creates a clear and mandatory bar on this Authority from entertaining or allowing an application where the question raised has already been decided by a Court. This statutory embargo goes to the very root of the maintainability of the present application.
7.5 In the instant case, the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, has categorically objected to the maintainability of the. application on the ground that the precise issue relating to classification of roasted betel nut / areca nut stands conclusively decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CMA Nos. 600/2023, 1206/2023 and 1750/2023 dated 01.08.2023, and subsequently reaffirmed in Universal Impex and Neena Enterprises. The Hon’ble High Court, after an elaborate examination of the tariff structure, IISN Explanatory Notes and governing principles of classification, held inter alia that:
a. roasting is a process distinct from boiling or drying and has material bearing on tariff classification;
b. roasted betel/areca nuts are specifically covered under Heading 20.08;
c. HSN Explanatory Notes constitute a reliable and safe guide for classification; and
d. where a specific tariff entry exists, the common parlance test becomes
7.6 The applicant has argued that the omission of item 2008 19 20 and the introduction of tariff item 2008 19 91 by the Finance Act, 2025 constitutes a “change in law”, warranting a fresh advance ruling. This contention has been carefully examined.
7.7 A comparative analysis of the pre-amendment and post-amendment tariff structure reveals that the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 2025 is limited to renumbering and restructuring at the eight-digit tariff item level. The four-digit heading (2008), six-digit sub-heading (200819), the heading text, and the scope of the entry “Other roasted nuts and seeds” remain unchanged. There is no alteration in the Chapter Notes, Section Notes, or the essential classification framework.
7.8 Significantly, the applicant itself has acknowledged that the amendment has not altered the settled position that roasted betel/areca nut falls under Chapter 20. The substitution of tariff item 2008 19 20 with 2008 19 91 does not create a new classification issue, but merely continues the same entry under a different numerical code.:
7.9 The ratio decidendi of the judgments of the I Ion.’ ble Madras I ugh Court, namely that roasting takes the product out of Chapter 08 and places it under Chapter 20, remains fully applicable even after the Finance Act, 2025. The legal principles laid down by the Court continue to govern the classification of roasted areca nuts notwithstanding the renumbering of the tariff item.
7.10 In view of the above, I find merit in the objection raised by the jurisdictional Commissioner that the question raised in the present application is identical, in substance and in law, to a matter already conclusively decided by a constitutional court. Consequently,the statutory bar under the proviso to Section 28-1(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 squarely applies.
7.11 As regards the applicant’s claim for exemption under SI. No. 172 of notification No. 41/2019-Customs, dated the 31st December, 2019, it is well settled that eligibility to such exemption is conditional upon satisfaction of the prescribed Rules of Origin and documentary requirements. Determination of origin and fulfilment of conditions is a matter to be examined by the proper officer at the time of importation and does not warrant an advance ruling in the present circumstances.
8. In view of the statutory bar contained in the proviso to Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs
Act, 1962, and in light of the binding judgments of the I-Ion’ble High Court of Madras on the identical issue, this Authority is constrained to refrain from issuing any ruling on the question of classification of roasted betel nut / areca nut raised in the present application.
9. The amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2025 do not give rise to any new legal issue warranting reconsideration of the settled classification position.
Order
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the statutory provisions, and the binding judicial precedents discussed above, I refrain from passing any ruling in respect of the classification of the subject goods, namely Roasted I3etclnut / Areca Nut (whole/cut).
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
