Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
M/s Rawder Petroleum Pvt Ltd. Thru. Director Mr. Shivendu Shukla – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Thru. Deptt. Of Revenue North Block New Delhi And Others – Respondents
Writ Tax No. - 71 of 2025, Custom Appeal No. - 3 of 2024, Custom Appeal No. - 3 of 2025
Decided On : 30-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court heard multiple parties regarding customs appeals and a writ petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the petitioner applied for an advance ruling on the classification of roasted areca nuts. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. disputes arose over the classification and testing of the imported product. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. the court admitted the customs appeal and provided interim measures. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. the court decided to hear the appeals and writ petition together. (Para 12) |
| 6. arguments from the department emphasized lack of empirical evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. the importer argued for the classification of the goods based on the advance ruling. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. the court identified the key issues for determination. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. the court discussed the concept and importance of advance rulings. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 10. the court examined the advance ruling's binding nature. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 11. the court analyzed the classification of roasted areca nuts. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. the court criticized the department's handling of testing and sampling. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 13. the court ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the classification. (Para 44) |
| 14. the court dismissed the appeals and allowed the writ petition. (Para 45 , 46) |
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
(1) Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra assisted by Sri Sankalp Mishra, Sri Krantiveer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Paawan Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Sri Anindya Shastri, learned counsel appearing for Customs in Writ Tax No.71 of 2025, Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for customs and Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent in Custom Appeal No.3 of 2024 and Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for customs in Custom Appeal No.3 of 2025. None appears on behalf of the respondent in connected Custom Appeal No.3 of 2025.
(2) Since, the core issue engaging the attention of this Court in Custom Appeals filed by the Department as well as the Writ Petition filed by the importer (M/s Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd.) evolves from a common set of facts and circumstances relating to the custom tariff entry and the HSN code applicable to “roasted areca nuts” and their consequential import made in India, both the two Customs Appeal as well as the Writ Petition has been heard together and is being decided by this common Judgment.
(3) Briefly stating, the claim of the importer/petitioner in Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025 (M/s Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India) is premised on the fact that vide a letter dated 04/06/2024, they were informed by their overseas suppliers that the production and processing of ‘roasted areca nuts’ is carried out by husking of the raw betel/‘areca nuts’ and drying the same before being fed into roastry roasting oven, wherein it is roasted well beyond 100 degree Celsius in the range of 130-150 degrees using firewood/palm kernel based over of the seed roasting machine and the temperature of the same is around 600 degree Celsius. In view of the said process performed for brining into existence of ‘roasted areca nuts”, the petitioner applied for obtaining an ‘advance ruling’ in the form and manner provided for under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962. The said application was filed along with all the supporting documents, including the process-flow mentioned in letter dated 04/06/2024, wherein a reply was also filed by the department before the Custom Authority for Advance Ruling (Hereinafter to be referred as CAAR).
(4) Apparently, the CAAR considering the claim of the importer, ruled that the ‘roasted areca nut’ obtained from the process- flow as mentioned in the letter dated 04/06/2024, would be falling under Chapter 20 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide an order dated 19th of September, 2024.
(5) It is the case of t
The classification of 'roasted areca nuts' under CTH 2008 19 20 was upheld, distinguishing it from 'dried areca nuts', based on the distinct processes of roasting and drying as per the Customs Tariff....
Classification of imported areca nuts as roasted is determined by moisture content, with levels below 10% qualifying as roasted. Advance rulings on classification are binding on the department, and a....
The classification of imported areca nuts as roasted or raw depends on moisture content, with below 10% indicating roasted nuts, as per the Authority for Advance Rulings.
The court upheld the Advance Ruling classifying 'Supari' under Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff, emphasizing the Department's obligation to adhere to it and ordering the release of detained goods.
Food safety authority's NOCs confirming imported food fit for human consumption after testing bind customs; arbitrary re-testing, seizure without overriding reasons invalid.
Food safety authority's clearance via NOCs after rigorous testing binds customs authorities, precluding arbitrary re-testing, seizure of compliant imported food goods without justification.
Provisionally preserved areca nuts fit for human consumption classify under tariff heading 0802, not 0812.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
