The classification of imported areca nuts as 'roasted' or 'raw' is determined by moisture content, with the court emphasizing adherence to established parameters in administrative decisions.

COMMON ORDER

The writ petition in W.P.No.23836 of 2024 is pertaining to the following bill of entries:

2. The writ petition in W.P.No.24237 of 2024 is pertaining to the following bill of entries:

3. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel and Dr.S.Krishnanandh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had made the following submissions:

3.1 In this case, the petitioners had imported the “roasted areca nuts” from Indonesia. Subsequent to the said importation, the samples of areca nuts were sent to the CRCL Laboratories, Chennai, for testing. In the report of CRCL Laboratories, Chennai, it has been stated that the moisture content of the imported areca nuts is 3.97%.

3.2 As per the Advanced Ruling Authority, if the moisture content of the areca nuts is between the range of 10% and 15%, it would be considered as “raw areca nuts”, whereas, if the moisture content is below 10%, it would be considered as “roasted areca nut”. When such being the case, since the moisture content of the areca nuts imported by the petitioner is 3.97%, the same shall be classified as “roasted areca nuts” and in such case, the respondent is supposed to have released the goods imported by the petitioner. However, in spite of the representations made by the petitioner, the respondent had failed to take any steps to release the goods. Under these circumstances, with no other options, the petitioners were constrained to move the writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos. 33420, 33422 and 36343 of 2023.

3.3 Pending the aforesaid petitions, the respondent had sent the samples of the imported areca nuts to the CRCL Laboratories, New Delhi, and received the report stating that the moisture content of one sample is 8.8% and other sample is 7%. Since there was a variation in moisture content in the reports of the CRCL, Chennai and CRCL, New Delhi, this Court directed to draw the fresh samples of imported areca nuts, in the presence of importers and Customs Authorities, for testing by Food Safety Authorities, Chennai. The said order was challenged vide W.A.Nos.1493, 1945 of 2024, etc., however, the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024.

3.4 Thereafter, the Food safety Authorities took the samples and after testing, they issued a certificate stating that the moisture content in the areca nut is 3.64% in one batch and 3.48% in another batch. Therefore, based on the said report, this Court passed an order dated 23.04.2024, directing the respondents to release the consignment for the aforesaid bill of entries. Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the respondent against the order passed by this Court, by way of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.1537, 1540, 1545, 1547 of 2024, etc. Pending the appeals, the respondent was directed to pass an adjudication order. Accordingly, the adjudication order came to be passed by the respondents on 22.07.2024. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.07.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ appeals by granting liberty to the petitioners to assail the order dated 22.07.2024 by filing an appeal before the appropriate forum. Hence, these petitions have been filed.

3.5 The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in this case, the respondents, in non-application of mind, had passed the order-in-original without considering the several vital documents produced by the petitioner. He would also contend that the Advance Ruling Authorities had already determined the moisture content of “roasted areca nut” and “raw areca nut”, i.e., if the moisture content is below 10%, the same shall be considered as “roasted areca nuts”, whereas, if the moisture content is between 10% and 15%, the same shall be classified as “raw areca nuts”. In this case, in all the 4