JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Jain, J.) :

Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mounts a challenge to an Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 11th November 2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva, District Raigad. The challenge to such order is primarily on the ground that the said order is in complete defiance of an order dated 31 March 2017 passed by the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) under the Chapter V B of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) containing Sections 28E to 28M.

3. Briefly the facts are :- The petitioner is primarily engaged in the business of import of various edible products including products of betel nut (processed supari). The petitioner has been importing various forms of supari stated to be unflavoured betel nuts (supari) and API betel nuts (supari). The petitioner is importing the said goods from only two suppliers namely Asian Import & Export Co. Ltd., Thailand and Maung Maung Soe Family Co. Ltd., Myanmar. Such imports are received at Chennai and JNPT port.

(i) On 31st March, 2017, on an application made by the petitioner, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) ruling made the following observations:-

“12. In view of the above, we rule as under :-

The goods sought to be imported, namely; ‘unflavoured supari’, ‘flavoured supari’, ‘API supari’ and ‘Chikni supari’ being processed Betelnut products which do not contain specified ingredients, namely; lime, kath and tobacco but containing other flavouring material/additives are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2106 90 30.”

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) On 25th November, 2017, the petitioner imported betel nuts from Indonesia at the Chennai port and classified the same as ‘unflavoured supari’. These goods were assessed under the Custom Tariff Heading (CTH) 21069030 as ‘unflavoured supari’. However, the officer of DRI did not permit the cargo to be cleared on the ground that the petitioner has mis-classified the goods. The petitioner challenged the said action by filing a writ petition before the Madras High Court inter alia contending that classification issue is resolved by the AAR vide order dated 31st March, 2017 wherein the AAR has given a ruling that ‘unflavoured supari’ is to be classified under CTH 21069030. The Madras High Court in its judgment reported in 2018 (13) GSTL 273 observed that the seizure memo is contrary to the ruling passed by the AAR as well as the stand taken by the Commissioner of Customs before the said authority and, therefore, the detention of the cargo by the revenue authority was wholly unjustified. This order has attained finality.

(iii) Subsequently, the petitioner imported unflavoured supari from Myanmar by classifying the same under CTH 21069030 vide Bill of Entry No.8077228 dated 30th March, 2022. Respondent no.3 passed an O-I-O dated 11th November, 2022 rejecting the classification of the goods imported on 30th March, 2022 under CTH 21069030 and ordered the same to be classified under heading 0802 on the ground that the CESTAT Chennai Bench in the case of S.T. Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (378) E.L.T. 514 (Tri. - Chennai), and in the case of Ayush Business Overseas vs. Commissioner, 2021 (378) E.L.T. A 142 (SC), has taken a view that the betel nuts imported by these parties fall under Chapter 8 and not under Chapter 21 of CTH. Furthermore, an appeal filed by Ayush Business Overseas to the Supreme Court against the said order of the CESTAT, Chennai Bench was dismissed and, therefore, would result into change of law for not following the decision of the AAR in the case of the petitioner. It is on this backdrop that the present petition is filed challenging the O-I-O dated 11th November, 2022 passed by respondent no.3.

4. Submissions of the Petitioner :- The petitioner would contend that the classification issue in its own case has been decided by the AA