The court emphasized the necessity for timely assessment and clearance of imported goods under the Customs Act, allowing provisional release upon specified deposits.

ORDER :

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik Modh for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta for the respondents.

2. Notice returnable forthwith in Special Civil Application No.3351 of 2025. Learned advocate Mr. C.B. Gupta waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. Facts are identical in both the petitions and therefore, for the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civil Application No.1254 of 2025.

4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to assess the Bill of Entry No.6003698 dated 07.10.2024 by allowing the Roasted Areca Nuts imported by the petitioner by the said Bill of Entry for clearance of goods for home consumption. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the letter dated 13.02.2025 issued during the pendency of this petition for provisional release of the goods imported by the petitioner on condition to submit provisional bond and Bank Guarantee of 25% of differential duty.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Modh submitted that the petitioner had preferred an application for Advance Ruling before the Customs Authorities under section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for classification of “Roasted Areca Nuts Whole and Roasted Areca Nuts Tukda/Split/Farcha” as the petitioner had doubt whether the Roasted Areca Nuts would fall under Chapter 8, Chapter 20 or Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act.

6. It was submitted that the Customs Authorities for Advance Ruling by order dated 24.07.2024 examined the issue of classification of Roasted Areca Nuts and held that the Roasted Areca Nuts merit classification under CTH 2008 19 20 of Chapter 20 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in view of the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Shahnaz Commodities International Private Limited reported in 2023 (386) ELT 214.

7. It was further submitted that after filing the Bill of Entry for import of Roasted Areca Nuts Split classifying it under Chapter Heading No. 2008 19 20 on 07.10.2024, the respondent authority did not permit the clearance and sent the samples to Central Revenue Control Laboratory(CRCL), New Delhi for examination.

8. It was submitted that CRCL by report dated 21.11.2024 examined the samples and issued the Test Report stating that based on the parameters and appearance, the sample has the characteristics of Areca Nuts. It was further stated that whether the goods were fit for human consumption could not be ascertained since the parameters of TPC,Y&M, S.aureus, Enterobacteriacae were not done due to sample not being received in sterile bags and Metal contaminants of the sample could not be done due to instrument breakdown.

9. It was further pointed out that the Plant Protection Officer also examined the consignment imported under the said Bill of Entry on 28.11.2024 and certified that the imported consignments accorded quarantine clearance/provisional quarantine clearance for growing in an approved post entry/Quarantine facility as per the provisions of Clause 3(1B) of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order, 2003 issued under section 3(1) of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914.

10. It was further pointed out that the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India(FASSI) examined the samples through NABL Accredited Laboratory and came to the conclusion that the result of analysis shows that the samples confirm the specifications prescribed under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 and Regulations made thereunder after examining the parameters which were not examined by CRCL.

11. It was pointed out that the respondent authorities however did not assess the Bill of Entry and allowed the clearance of goods for home consumption inspite of various requests made by the petitioner from time to time.

12. Being aggrieved by such action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred Special C