The court affirmed prior classifications and confirmed jurisdiction to direct release based on established safety and classification standards as per the Customs Act and Food Safety regulations.

COMMON ORDER

These eight Writ Petitions were filed by two importers, namely, M/s.Universal Impex and M/s.Neena Enterprises.

2. The said importers had imported goods by labelling the same as roasted areca nuts. Since the goods were not released to the respective petitioner in spite of several requests in that regard, these Writ Petitions were filed. Each Writ Petition is for a mandamus directing the respondents to release the goods under the respective bills of entry subject to payment of applicable taxes.

3. When these Writ Petitions were listed for hearing on 06.02.2024, learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respective petitioner relied upon reports of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Chennai (CRCL Chennai) and the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to contend that the goods qualify as roasted areca nuts, whereas the respondents relied on reports of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, Delhi (CRCL Delhi) and the Arecanut Research and Development Foundation (ARDF) to contend that the goods are dried areca nuts and not roasted areca nuts.

4. In those circumstances, I directed the FSSAI to undertake testing of samples from each consignment to ascertain whether the samples satisfy all relevant parameters of roasted arecanuts and to determine whether such arecanuts are fit for human consumption. The FSSAI undertook testing through one of its accredited laboratories and placed the reports before this Court.

5. Oral arguments on behalf of the petitioners were made by Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned senior counsel, Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, learned counsel, Dr.S.Krishnanandh, learned counsel, and Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel. On behalf of the respondents, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned senior standing counsel, made submissions.

6. The submissions and contentions of learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the petitioners may be summarized as under:-

(i) The question of classification was decided by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in proceedings initiated by the respective petitioner.

(ii) The CAAR concluded that roasted areca nuts fall within Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2008 19 20.

(iii) The Division Bench of this Court affirmed the ruling of the CAAR and refused to interfere with the same when the ruling of the CAAR was carried in appeal in C.M.A.Nos.600, 1206 and 1750 of 2023.

(iv) Therefore, the question of classification was resolved conclusively and, consequently, does not fall for consideration in these petitions.

(v) As a consequence of the question of classification being decided, the only question that survives for consideration is whether the consignments imported under the respective bills of entry qualify as roasted areca nuts.

(vi) It was concluded in the earlier report of the CRCL Chennai and both the earlier and recent report of the FSSAI that each consignment contains roasted areca nuts, which are fit for human consumption.

(vii) Therefore, these goods are liable to be released to the respective petitioner subject to payment of applicable taxes, if not already paid.

7. The submissions and contentions of Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned senior standing counsel, in response may be summarised as under:-

(i) The relief claimed in the writ petitions is for a mandamus to direct release of goods, and such relief cannot be claimed in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(ii) After the Writ Petitions were filed, the goods under most of the bills of entry were seized by the respondents.

(iii) In absence of an application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Customs Act), the relief claimed in these Writ Petitions cannot be entertained.

(iv) By these writ petitions, the petitioners are inviting a decision on a classification dispute. Under Section 130 of the Customs Act, even an appeal does not lie in respect of the rate of duty or the value of goods.

Consequently, these Writ Petitions should not be entertained.

(v) Since the classif