THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.24835/2025 DATED 29/10/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID PETITION.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,

K.V. ARAVIND J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri. K. Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Sri. M. Unnikrishnan, learned Senior Standing counsel for appellants and Sri. M.S. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for Sri. Aswin Prabhu S.D., learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1.

2. This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Revenue, impugning the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.24835/2025.

3. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that the respondent imported 54 metric tons of betel nuts from Indonesia and filed Bill of Entry No.8953207 dated 18.03.2025. The respondent claimed that the imported goods were roasted arecanuts. The appellants subjected the goods to sampling and testing by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short, ‘ICAR’). ICAR, in its test report, opined that the imported goods were not roasted arecanuts.

3.1 Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to release the goods covered under the Bill of Entry or, in the alternative, to direct drawing of fresh samples from the consignment and to conduct re- testing of such samples through any agency accredited by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (for short, ‘FSSAI’).

3.2 The learned Single Judge, under the impugned order, directed the appellants to release the imported consignment, subject to the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee to the extent of 25% of the value of the goods, as indicated in the Bill of Entry and the Commercial Invoice dated 17.02.2024.

4. Sri K. Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants–Revenue, submits that the Bill of Entry describes the imported goods as roasted betel nuts. However, according to the appellants, the goods are, in fact, raw betel nuts falling under a different tariff classification. Samples of the goods were sent for testing to the ICAR–Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod. ICAR, in its report dated 16.06.2025, upon examining the samples and their moisture content, has concluded that the samples are raw dried arecanuts and not roasted arecanuts. It is further submitted that, as per the said report, the samples have not undergone the process of roasting, but have only undergone partial drying.

4.1 It is contended that, in view of the ICAR report, the goods are liable to be provisionally assessed as raw arecanuts under Tariff Heading 080280. It is further submitted that, in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, ‘the Act’), the transaction value of the goods is ordinarily to be adopted. However, sub-section (2) of Section 14 empowers the Board to fix tariff values for any class of imported goods, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1).

4.2 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 14(2) of the Act, the Board has issued Notification No. 13/2025 dated 13.03.2025, effective from 14.03.2025, prescribing the tariff value of arecanuts falling under Tariff Heading 080280 at USD 8140. It is submitted that, if the imported goods are assessed as raw arecanuts by applying the notified tariff value, the value of the goods would be Rs.3,85,93,368/-.

4.3 It is further submitted that, if the goods are to be released, such release ought to be subject to deposit of 100% of the duty on the value so determined, pending final adjudication. In this regard, it is contended that, in view of the tariff value notified under Section 14(2) of the Act, the direction of th