# M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1530
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-30
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-rawder-petroleum-pvt-ltd-v-union-of-india-ors-53525
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Customs
Act,1962-Sections
28H, 28I & 28J-Customs Tariff Act,1975:
Chapter 8 Vs Chapter 20-M/s Rawder
Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. imported "roasted
areca nuts" after obtaining an advance
ruling from the Customs Authority for
Advance Ruling (CAAR), which classified
the product under Tariff Item 2008 19 20
(Chapter 20 of Customs Tariff Act)-The
Customs
Department
disputed
this
classification and claimed the product was
instead "dried areca nuts" falling under
Chapter 8, specifically Tariff Item 0802
80-The department challenged the CAAR
ruling via Custom Appeals and also
refused to release the imported goods,
citing adverse test reports from CRCL,
New Delhi-The importer, in turn, filed a
writ petition for release of the goods and
to enforce the advance ruling-The Court
upheld the CAAR's ruling, it held that
roasting is a process distinct from drying
involving high heat that alters the physical
and chemical properties of the nut-Since
Chapter
8
deals

with
moderate
heat/drying and Chapter 20 includes
roasted nuts, the classification under 2008
19 20 was correct-Conflicting lab reports
were presented, private lab reported
moisture content below 4%, declaring the
nuts
as
roasted
while
CRCL,
New
Delhi(govt. lab) found moisture content
above 7%, declaring them dried and unfit
for human consumption- However, The
court found merit in the importer's claim
and circumstances-Hence, the importer's
goods cannot be treated as mis declared
solely based on disputed lab reports-the
Impugned letter dated 27.12.2024 and
seizure memo dated 10.03.2025 quashedCustoms directed to release the goods
immediately. (Para 1 to 46)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,815 of 69,009. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39815 for what follows._

1530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is to be awarded to the respondents for
compelling the petitioners to deposit
firearms licence by means of general order.
The cost is quantified to Rs.25,000/-
payable to the petitioners within six
months.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1530
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025
Connected with
Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2024
With
Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2025

M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ratnesh Chandra, Sankalp Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anidya Shastri, Dipak Seth, Pawan
Kumar Awasthi

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Customs
Act,1962-Sections
28H, 28I & 28J-Customs Tariff Act,1975:
Chapter 8 Vs Chapter 20-M/s Rawder
Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. imported "roasted
areca nuts" after obtaining an advance
ruling from the Customs Authority for
Advance Ruling (CAAR), which classified
the product under Tariff Item 2008 19 20
(Chapter 20 of Customs Tariff Act)-The
Customs
Department
disputed
this
classification and claimed the product was
instead "dried areca nuts" falling under
Chapter 8, specifically Tariff Item 0802
80-The department challenged the CAAR
ruling via Custom Appeals and also
refused to release the imported goods,
citing adverse test reports from CRCL,
New Delhi-The importer, in turn, filed a
writ petition for release of the goods and
to enforce the advance ruling-The Court
upheld the CAAR's ruling, it held that
roasting is a process distinct from drying
involving high heat that alters the physical
and chemical properties of the nut-Since
Chapter
8
deals

with
moderate
heat/drying and Chapter 20 includes
roasted nuts, the classification under 2008
19 20 was correct-Conflicting lab reports
were presented, private lab reported
moisture content below 4%, declaring the
nuts
as
roasted
while
CRCL,
New
Delhi(govt. lab) found moisture content
above 7%, declaring them dried and unfit
for human consumption- However, The
court found merit in the importer's claim
and circumstances-Hence, the importer's
goods cannot be treated as mis declared
solely based on disputed lab reports-the
Impugned letter dated 27.12.2024 and
seizure memo dated 10.03.2025 quashedCustoms directed to release the goods
immediately. (Para 1 to 46)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Alladi Venkateshwarlu Vs Govt. of A.P. (1978)
AIR SC 945

2. M/s S.T. Enterprises Vs Commr. of Customs
(2021) 378 ELT A 142 SC

3. Commr. Customs Vs Shehnaz commodity
International Pvt Ltd.. dated 01/08/2023

4. STP Ltd. Vs Collr. of Central Excise,
Patna(1998) 1 SCC 297

5. M/s Universal Impex Vs Commr. of Customs,
W.P. No. 23836 of 2024, dated 22/11/2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1)
Heard
Sri
Ratnesh
Chandra
assisted by Sri Sankalp Mishra, Sri
5 All. M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1531
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 the Importer that
pursuant to the said advance ruling, they
placed their orders to an Indonesian
Company for supply of 'roasted areca
nuts', which came to be dispatched vide
bill dated 14/10/2024 and according to
them the said nuts were put to shipment on
16/10/2024
after
clearance
from
the
customs authorities of Indonesia under
HSN 2008 19 20 and the goods arrived in
India under Bill or Entry dated 06/11/2024,
which showed the port of submission to be
ICD Panki, Kanpur.

(6) In the intervening period, the
department had preferred a Custom Appeal
No.3 of 2024 under Section 28KA of the
Customs
Act,
1962
challenging
the
advance ruling dated 19.09.2024 passed by
the CAAR, before this Court on the ground
that the proposed goods ('roasted areca
1532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nuts') had not been tested nor have been
produced for examination/testing by the
importer and secondly the department also
disputed the very process of roasting of the
'roasted areca nuts', as, according to them,
these areca nuts could had been only dried
and it cannot be roasted at any time and in
any case, if, it was to be roasted, the
moisture content could not be reduced, so
as to be considered 'roasted areca nuts' and
chargeable to duties under Chapter 20 of
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for and in
place of 'dried areca nuts', which are
chargeable under Chapter 8 of the Tariff
Act.

(7) The said appeals came to be filed
by the department on or around 20.11.2024
and since by that time, the assesse had
already imported the commodity, which,
according to them, was 'roasted areca nuts'
and according to the department was 'dried
areca
nuts',
the
department
for
determination of their true nature and
character drew samples of the imported
commodity and sent for testing to the
laboratory, namely, M/s Fare Labs Pvt. Ltd.
at Gurgaon. The said laboratory apparently
seems to have submitted a preliminary
report dated 22.11.2024 that the moisture
content of the imported 'areca nut' was
around 3.39% and subsequently, a detailed
report was given on 18.12.2024, thereby
giving a finding that the moisture content
was 3.9% and that the commodity was
'roasted areca nuts' & fit for human
consumption. However, in the intervening
period, the samples sent by the department
for testing to the Central Revenue Control
Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi, submitted
a report dated 16.12.2024 finding that the
moisture content was 7.09% and the
commodity was 'dry areca nuts' and not
'roasted areca nuts', which was not fit for
human consumption.

(8) While things stood thus, the
petitioner armed with both the preliminary
and final report of M/s Fare Labs Pvt. Ltd.
at Gurgaon requested the department for
releasing of their commodity vide their
letter dated 20.12.2024 and 24.12.2024
claiming that the same was 'roasted areca
nuts' and fit for human consumption. The
petitioner also highlighted that huge
demurrage charges was being levied by
ICD Panki, Kanpur and they were suffering
losses in business. However, the department
relying on the Test Report dated 16.12.2024
of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory
(CRCL) issued a letter dated 27.12.2024 to
the importer, declaring that the imported
commodity was 'dried areca nuts' in view of
the said test report of the central laboratory
conducted as per Regulation No. 2.33.55 of
Food Safety & Standard Regulations, 2011.
The said stand of the department was
objected to by the importer vide their
objection
letter
dated
03.01.2025
and
21.01.2025 and they also demanded the
samples and test reports of the commodity
imported to be provided to them.

(9) Apparently, the department refused
to oblige the importer with the sealed
samples and test memo taking shelter of
section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 and
also
vide
the
impugned
letter
dated
27.12.2024 observed that the goods imported
were dried Betelnuts/Areca nuts as indicated
by CRCL, New Delhi in its report dated
16.12.2024 instead of Roasted Areca Nuts
and as such held that there was a misdeclaration/misclassification of the goods
under Customs Act, for which necessary
action was proposed, thus prompting the
importer to file Writ Tax No.71 of 2025 for
the following, amongst other, reliefs :-

"i. Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
5 All. M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1533
quashing
the
impugned
order
dated
27/12/2024 passed by the opposite Party
No.3, a copy of which is contained under
AnnexureNo1 of this writ petition.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction
in nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to immediately release the
'roasted areca nut' which the petitioner
have imported vide bill of entry dated
06/11/2024. The copies of which are
contained in an Annexure No. 17 to+ his
writ petition. Without getting influenced
with the Test Report dated 16/12/2024 of
the CRCL, New Delhi or any other
subsequent test reports.

iii. Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
nature
of
mandamus
commanding the opposite parties to make
payment of warehousing or waive charges
in respect of the goods which are not being
released from 06/11/2024 till the actual
date of release.

iv. Issue a writ, order or direction
in nature of mandamus commanding the
opposite parties to pay exemplary damages
to the petitioner due to their unprofessional
attitude in not releasing the imported
commodity of the petitioner ie 'roasted
areca nuts'.

v. issue a writ, order or direction
in a nature of certiorari quashing the
seizure memo dated 10/03/2025 passed by
Custom Officer contained as Annexure-28
to this Writ Petition*

* The said prayer was sought to
be included by the importer vide their
Application dated 02.05.2025.

(10) At this juncture and for the sake
of clarity, it would be profitable to note the
prayer sought by the Appellant-Department
in the connected Custom Appeal No 3 of
2024 (Commissioner of Customs, Lucknow
V/s M/s Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd.) filed
under section 28KA of the Customs Act,
1962, against the Advance Ruling No.
CAAR/DEL/
RAWDER/55/2024
dated
19.09.2024
passed
by
the
Customs
Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR),
New Delhi. The department in the said
Custom
Appeal
has
sought
for
the
following reliefs, amongst others:

" a. Set aside the Advance Ruing
No. CAAR/Del/ Rawder/55/2024 dated
19.09.2024 passed by the CAAR, New
Delhi;

b. Hold that the goods described
as "Roasted Area Nuts (Whole)", "Roasted
Area Nut (Split)" and "roasted Area Nut
(Cut)" are classifiable under CTH 080280
of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975;

c. Remand the matter back to
CAAR to undertake a proper examination
of the goods including laboratory testing of
samples, process flow by foreign suppliers,
before
deciding
the
question
of
classification in the present case."

(11) This Court finds that the aforesaid
Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2024 was
admitted vide order dated 17.12.2024 and
parties were as such directed to exchange
the pleadings. Further, as an interim
measure, it was also provided that the
advance ruling in question will be treated
as General Ruling regarding Roasted Areca
Nuts and with regard to the products which
the respondent proposes to import/export, it
shall be open for the appellant to get the
actual samples sought to be imported/
exported by the respondents, tested, and if
on such testing it is found that the goods
are not actually Roasted Areca Nuts, then
the Ruling will not be beneficial to the
respondent. However, if. it is found,
otherwise, then, of course, the benefit of
the ruling will be available to the
respondent as per the impugned judgment,
subject to the result of this appeal.
1534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(12) In the intervening period, another
Customs Appeal bearing No. 3 of 2025
(Comm. Of Customs (Preventive) V/s M/s
Auto Campus) came to be filed by the
department, seeking similar reliefs, except
that the advance ruling sought to be
challenged in the appeal was Advance
Ruling
No.
CAARMum/ARC/
172,173,174,175,176/
Mumbai
dated
10.12.2024 decided in favour of the
Importer-M/s Auto Campus. Thus, these
two Appeals and the connected Writ
Petition was heard together and reserved
for Judgments.

(13) Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the Custom
Department has submitted that the CAAR
has failed to exercise its power conferred
upon it under section 28I(4) read with
Section 28L of the Customs Act, 1962
relating to Advance Ruling and thus has
erroneously classified the Areca Nuts under
CTH 2008 19 20 without any empirical
data, test or laboratory report, sample and
without
any
independent
inquiry/
investigation. It is the submission of the
learned counsel that the Advance ruling is
solely based on relying the process flow
provided by the importer by a third party
based in Singapore and not by the supplier
from whom the areca nuts were actually
imported from Indonesia. According to
him, as per Note 3 of Chapter 08, dried
fruits and nuts may also undergo treatments
like moderate heat treatment, which has
been undergone by the areca nuts imported
by the importer and solely because these
nuts were made to undergo heat treatment,
as contended by the importer in the process
flow, the classification of these nuts could
not be made under Chapter 20 instead of
Chapter 08. It has been vehemently argued
that moderate heat has not been defined
under the Customs Act or tariff so as to
relate it with the intensity/degree of
temperature and thus according to the
learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
department, the alleged roasted areca nuts
imported by the importer having been
merely
subjected
to
moderate
heat
treatment ought to have been classifiable
under CTH 080280, especially when the
reduction in moisture, arecoline and tannin
content can be performed through boiling
or
sun
drying
and
cannot
be
a
distinguishable factor for classification
under Chapter 20 as similar reductions
occur during moderate heat treatment
allowed under Chapter 08.

(14) The learned Counsel had taken
this Court to the Chapter Notes of Chapter
20 to show that it did not cover nuts
prepared by the process as specified under
chapter 8 and relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Alladi
Venkateshwarlu V/s Government of
Andhra Pradesh : AIR 1978 SC 945 to
contend that the process of roasting leads to
charred physical appearance, which is not
the case in the areca nuts imported by the
importer. According to him, the nuts in
question do not become charred in physical
appearance after going through the process
flow described by the importer. Further, he
submitted that the explanatory notes to
Chapter 20 of Harmonized System of
Nomenclature (HSN) specify that goods
classified thereunder are usually presented
in airtight containers like cans or jars for
long-term preservation, however, it is clear
from the facts of the present case that the
importer has imported the goods in bulk in
Jumbo bags, which according to him did
not even meet the packaging conditions
specified for products under chapter 20. He
has also highlighted that as per Rule 3(a) of
the General Rules for the interpretation of
the
Harmonized
system,
specific
5 All. M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1535
description should take precedence over
general descriptions and as such since
chapter 08 specifically covers areca nuts,
including those subjected to moderate heat
treatment, Chapter 20 should be not be
resorted to for classification as it covers a
more general category of preserved nuts.
The learned Counsel has also relied on the
judgment of M/s S.T Enterprises Vs
Commissioner
of
Customs,
which
although was delivered by CESTAT but
was later affirmed by the Supreme Court in
2021 (378) ELT A 142(SC), wherein
similar products as that of the importer was
classified under CTH 080280 as they had
been held to have been obtained by the
process of boiling or moderate heat (like
roasting).

(15) Per contra, Shri Ratnesh Chandra,
learned counsel appearing for the importer
has submitted that the very essence and
purpose of obtaining an advance ruling has
been distorted by the department, which
makes the Appeal vulnerable for dismissal.
According to him, advance ruling means
and refers to a written decision on any of
the
question
preferred
by
an
importer/exporter in his or her application
in respect of any goods prior to its
importation or exportation. It has been
submitted by Mr. Chandra that prior to
submission of application for advance
ruling before the CAAR, the importer had
inquired about the 'roasted areca nuts' and
its production and processing, to which the
overseas supplier had informed that they
carry out de-husking of the raw areca nuts
and dry the same, before being fed into
roastry roasting oven, wherein it is roasted
well beyond 100 degree Celsius usually in the
range of 135-150 degree Celsius, using
firewood/palm kernel based oven. Thereafter
the cooling process is undertaken in room
temperature to check its moisture content and
the said process is repeatedly performed until
the water content of the areca nuts does not
go beyond 6%. The aforesaid process as
explained by the supplier vide a letter dated
04/06/2024 forms a part of record before this
Court as well as the CAAR, New Delhi.

(16) It has been submitted that the
importer enamored with the aforesaid process
explained by the overseas supplier had
approached the CAAR for ascertaining as to
under which heading/chapter of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975, the roasted areca nuts would
be falling. According to Mr. Chandra, the
CAAR after considering the contents of the
Application as well as the reply submitted by
the department and also considering the
various precedents available for 'roasted
areca nuts' returned a finding that roasted
areca nuts fall under Custom Tariff Heading
2008, specifically under sub heading 2008 19
20 covering 'other roasted nuts' and seed of
the First Schedule of the Custom Tariff Act,
1975. As a consequence of the said advance
ruling, the importer placed their order for
supply of 'roasted areca nuts' to an
Indonesian company, which were dispatched
to India vide bill dated 14.10.2024, wherein
again the custom authorities of Indonesia
have found the areca nuts to be 'roasted areca
nuts' and falling under HS 2008 19 20 and
these goods have arrived in India under the
Bill of Entry dated 06.11.2024, wherein the
port of submission is shown to be ICD Panki
Kanpur. It has been further contended by the
learned counsel that the importer was having
overseas buyers from USA and Malaysia and
these areca nuts were meant for exporting
them pursuant to order dated 25/09/2024 and
22/09/2024 placed by these countries with
mandate of supplying within 90 and 60 days
respectively.

(17) According to Mr. Chandra, the
department has filed the custom appeals
1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
based on a wrong analogy that 'areca nuts'
can never be roasted and can only be dried.
He submits that the present case is a classic
case of mistaken identity, in as much as
'roasted areca nuts' is mistaken to be 'dried
areca nuts' and is being made classifiable
under chapter 8 of the Custom Tariff Act,
1975 instead of chapter 20 of the said
Tariff Act. He further submits that the
goods imported by the importer are
'roasted areca nuts' and falls under Chapter
20 (HS 2008 19 20) as has also been
considered by the Madras High Court vide
its order dated 01/08/2023 in the case of the
Commissioner Customs Vs Shehnaz
commodity International Pvt. Ltd. The
learned Counsel would submit that there is
a marked difference between the entries
under CTH 08 and 20 as CTH 08 is meant
for 'whole, split, grounded including dried
nuts which are subject to process of
drying', whereas CTH 20 covers 'roasted
nuts'. It is his submission that process of
drying is different from roasting and as
such they find place under different tariff
entry and both are mutually exclusive to
each other. Had the dried nuts included
roasted nuts, there would had been no
occasion for including any entries such as
2008 19 20 and that could had been
covered under CTH 08. The learned
counsel has strenuously argued that once
the legislature has classified the 'roasted
nuts' under 2008 19 20 for which a
specified duty is incorporated, then under
such circumstances, it is absolutely clear
that there are areca nuts, which are roasted
also and which when imported would have
the specified duty. The learned counsel
supporting the advance ruling in favour of
the importer has cited the case of STP Ltd.
Vs Collector of Central Excise, Patna,
(1998) 1 SCC 297, to contend that
although there is no confusion between
'dry areca nuts' and 'roasted areca nuts' in
the first place, however, if it is even
assumed that some confusion existed, the
benefit of doubt in case of taxing statute
always
goes
in
the
favour
of
the
assesse/importer.

(18) It has been further submitted by
the learned Counsel for the importer that
'areca roasted nuts' were dispatched to
India, vide bill dated 14.10.2024 and were
put to shipment on 16.10.2024, after getting
clearance from the Indonesian authorities.
Subsequently, the importer filed the Bill of
entry for this 'roasted areca nuts', which
also mentions about the phytosanitary
certificate issued by the Government of
Indonesia relating to health of plant qua its
protection from pests, diseases and other
health risks. According to the learned
counsel, this certificate also testifies the
chemical test conducted on the product and
specifies its specifications and is issued by
the Government of Indonesia, which all
clearly certify that the product imported is
'roasted areca nuts'' and not any other
commodity.
He
further
submits
that
"roasted areca nuts" is internationally
recognized commodity and it cannot be
confused with dried areca nuts, which is
absolutely different in its specification and
nature. He also submits that the importer
was placed orders for supply of these
imported 'roasted areca nuts' by overseas
buyer vide order dated 22/09/2024 &
25/09/2024, which also is an additional
ground in the favour of the importer as
these areca nuts were meant to be exported
to overseas buyers after processing.

(19) The learned counsel further
buttressing his ground that the Custom
Appeal filed by the department is under a
misconceived analogy that 'roasted areca
nuts' also falls under chapter 8, which
defines 'dry areca nuts' as both the
5 All. M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1537
commodity are one and the same, is not the
correct position of fact as well as the law
on the subject and as such he has stressed
his reliance on an identical issue decided by
the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case
of
M/s
Universal
Impex
V/s
Commissioner of Customs (Writ Petition
No.
23836/2024,
dated
22/11/2024).
According to him, the High Court of
Madras records in the said judgment that
the 'roasted areca nuts' have been imported
from Indonesia, similarly as that of the
importer in the present case and further that
the advance ruling in that case has stated
that if the moisture content is between 10 to
15% it would be considered as 'raw areca
nuts' and where the content is below 10%,
it would be considered as 'roasted areca
nuts'. In the said judgment, the Ld Single
Bench held that areca nuts having moisture
content of less than 10% would be
categorized as roasted areca nuts and the
said findings have been confirmed in the
Division Bench of that Court.

(20) Completing the chain of events,
Shri Chandra has submitted that before the
filing of the custom Appeal by the
department against the advance ruling, the
'roasted areca nuts' arrived at ICD Panki,
Kanpur. Subsequently, the department
collected sample of imported 'roasted areca
nuts' on 18/11/2024 and sent to Fare Labs,
wherein a preliminary report was prepared
on 22/11/2024 showing that the moisture
content in the said "roasted areca nuts" to
be of 3.39%. It has been argued that there
was no role of the importer in collecting the
sample nor it was done in their presence or
the presence of their representative or their
CHA. It is his contention that Fare Lab was
again approached on 18/11/2024, which
again gave a report that the moisture
contents of the imported commodity was
3.9% and that the said commodity was
roasted areca nuts. He says that the samples
collected by the department were dehors
the existing guidelines for retesting of
samples issued by the government of India
on 18.07.2017 & clarified by circular dated
27/07/2017, which in clear terms specify
that in the first place, the samples should be
drawn in the presence of the importer and
after drawing the samples, the importer
should be communicated of the test results
and it is only in case the importer makes an
application in writing within 10 days from
the date of receipt of the test results, that
the re-testing could be done. According to
him, retesting is a right vested with the
importer and cannot be misused by the
department for its ulterior purposes and can
be done only in case the reports are adverse
to the importer in the first test. Elaborating
further, the learned counsel has submitted
that the said guidelines have also been
further clarified by the food Safety and
standards Authority of India vide its letter
dated 12/07/2022, wherein it says that the
food
analyst,
while
examining
any
imported food item, should ensure that the
report is available within five days from the
receipt of the sample by the notified
laboratory or referral laboratory, as the
chemical composition of the commodity
may change due to passage of time. He
further submits that the said letter also says
in as many words that in case sample is
tested by any particular laboratory, then the
referral should not be made to the same
laboratory, whereas in the present case, the
first test report is from M/s fare Labs and
the second test is from CRCL, New Delhi
and the third test is again from CRCL, New
Delhi. According to him, the third testing
ought to have been from some other
laboratory and not CRCL, New Delhi.

(21) According to the learned Counsel,
the department without any basis and
1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relying upon the illegal CRCL report dated
10/03/2025, wherein the moisture content
has been shown to be 7.09%, the customs
authorities treated the same to be dry areca
nuts and gave direction for seizure of the
goods of the importer. It is vehemently
argued by the Learned Counsel that the
department is guilty of suppression of facts,
as the department deliberately suppressed
the factum of the test report of M/s fare
Lab, which was in their favour and has
been conducted much earlier to the order
dated 17/12/2024 of this court directing for
conducting
the
aforesaid
third
test.
According to him, there was neither any
need nor the law provided for re-testing of
the commodity and as such both the 2nd
and 3rd report of CRCL, New Delhi was
void as it is in the teeth of the Guidelines
dated 18/07/2007 and 12/07/2022. He
further
submits
that
basically
the
department is proceeding in the present
matter under a wrong notion by comparing
the specification of areca nuts as provided
under the food Safety and standard Act and
the Regulations framed therein to the
"areca nuts' provided and classified under
chapter 8. He submits that the commodity
imported by the importer is altogether a
different commodity from areca nuts as
defined under FSSA and chapter 8 of the
Customs Tariff Act. According to him, the
commodity actually imported by the
importer are "roasted areca nuts', wherein
the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held
that the moisture content could be upto
10%. He submits that there is no
specification provided of the "roasted areca
nuts' in the FSSA regulations, which
essentially deals with areca nuts only.
Thus, he has prayed for release of the
imported "roasted areca nuts' and as to the
contention of the department that 6 months
has lapsed, ever since these areca nuts were
imported and as such were not fit for
human consumption, it has been submitted
by the learned counsel that the 'roasted
areca nuts' can be released subject to the
treatment of these nuts by 'Gamma
Irradiation process', wherein the moulds
and insect's in nuts can be sterilized/
treated. He says that the said proposition of
treatment has been laid down by the Bhaba
Atomic
Research
Centre,
Trombay,
Mumbai and is a well-recognized process
for treatments of areca nuts.

(22) Having perused the records and
heard the learned counsels for the parties at
length, this court finds that the hinge of the
arguments of the parties and the point of
determination for this court are twofold :-

(i) Whether the 'roasted areca
nuts" has been rightly classified under CTH
2008 19 20 by the CAAR.

(ii) Whether the 'areca nuts'
imported by the petitioner of the writ
petition No. 71/2025 are "roasted areca
nuts", so as to be classifiable under CTH
2008 19 20 or are merely dried areca nuts
and could be classified under CTH 080280.

(23) The answer to the issue No.1
would decide the fate of both the Customs
Appeal No. 3/2024 and 3/2025 filed by the
department and the answer to issue No.2
would accordingly decide the writ petition
No.
71/2025
filed
by
the
importer/petitioner-(M/s Rawder Petroleum
Pvt. Ltd.).

(24) Firstly, it must be understood that
the concept of Advance ruling was
introduced in the taxation law, whether it
be the Customs law or the GST or for that
matter the Income tax, to bring a quietus to
the uncertainty and ambiguity in tax
implication on proposed transaction by an
importer
or
exporter.
It
provides
a
5 All. M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1539
mechanism for seeking a written decision
from the competent authority relating to the
tax liability involved in the proposed
transaction. Advance ruling has been
recognized as a vital tool for businesses
engaged in export/import activities to
understand the incidence of tax involved in
the proposed transaction. Apparently, by
obtaining an advance ruling, businesses can
ensure
correct
classification,
accurate
valuation and consequent compliance with
tax laws, which ultimately would help them
in taking an informed decision and also
help them in avoiding future litigation.

(25) As far as the Customs Act is
concerned, advance ruling was inserted as
Chapter-VB to the Act in the year 1999.
Section 28E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962
defines the expression 'advance ruling' as a
written decision on any of the questions
referred to in Section 28H raised by the
importer/exporter in his application in
respect of any goods prior to its importation
or exportation. Section 28H(2) of the
Customs Act provides for application for
advance ruling and as such it contains a list
of question on which the advance ruling
can be sought and the list amongst others,
says in Section 28H(2)(a) that advance
ruling can be sought in respect of
classification of goods under the Custom
Tariff Act, 1975. Section 28I relates to the
procedure on receipt of Application and
section 28J significantly declares that the
advance
ruling
pronounced
by
the
Authority shall be binding only on -

(a) On the applicant who had
sought it;

(b) In respect of any matter
referred to in subsection (2) of section 28H;

(c)
On
the
Principal
commissioner of customs or commissioner
of Customs, and the customs authorities
subordinate to him, in respect of the
applicant.

(26)
Further,
Section
28J(2)
specifically provides that the advance
ruling shall be binding, unless there is a
change in law or facts on the basis of which
the advance ruling has been pronounced.

(27) This Court finds that the 'customs
authority for advance ruling' New Delhi,
after noting the process-flow of the
commodity proposed to be imported by the
importer and taking into consideration of
the material brought on record, has vide an
order dated 12.09.2024 ruled that 'roasted
areca nuts' both split and cut, falls under
Custom Tariff heading 2008, specifically
under sub-heading 2008 19 20 covering
'other roasted nuts & seeds" of the first
schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1976.
The CAAR, New Delhi, while arriving on
the said ruling returned an elaborate
finding,
which
may
be
profitably
enumerated as herein below:

6. I have taken into consideration
of all the materials placed on record in
respect of the subject goods including the
submissions made by the applicant during
the course of personal hearing. I have gone
through the response from the Customs
Port Commissionerate of Tuticorin, Tamil
Nadu. I therefore proceed to decide the
present application regarding classification
of Roasted Areca Nut on the basis of the
information on record as well as the
existing legal framework having bearing on
the classification of the roasted areca nut
under the first schedule of the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975.

6.1 I find that the concerned port
commissionerate in their comments, placed
reliance upon the Judgement / order passed
by Tribunal in the matter of M/s S.T.
1540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Enterprises, the classification of boiled
supari has been relied upon. I find that in
the present case, the goods in question is
Roasted Areca Nut / Betel Nut, which is
totally different from the items as placed
under reliance in the above said matter
hence, the judgements / orders may not be
applicable in the instant case.

6.2 I note that the processes
mentioned in Chapter 8 include chilling,
steaming, boiling, drying and provisionally
preserving. It does not specifically include
the process of roasting. Here, it is
important to understand the difference
between the processes of moderate heat
treatment & dehydrating/drying referred in
chapter 8 and processes of dry-roasting,
oil-roasting and fat-roasting referred in
chapter 20. The terms dry-roasting, oilroasting and fat-roasting however are not
defined in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Therefore,
these
terms
have
to
be
understood in a commonly accepted sense.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Alladi Venkateswarlu v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh 1978 AIR 945 held that
"the commonly accepted sense of a term
should prevail in construing the description
of an article of food". In common trade
parlance, "drying" is a method of food
preservation by the removal of water
content. On the other hand, "roasting"
means the excess or very high heat
treatment
that
produces
fundamental
chemical and physical changes in the
structure and composition of the goods,
bringing
about
a
charred
physical
appearance.
Therefore,
drying
is
a
moisture
removal
process
involving
methods such as dehydration, evaporation,
etc., whereas roasting is a severe heat
treatment process".

6.3 I also note that Chapter 20 of
the Tariff covers the Preparations of
vegetables, fruits, nuts or other parts of
plants. As per Chapter Note 1 (a) to
Chapter 20, the Chapter does not cover
vegetables, fruits or nuts prepared or
preserved by the processes specified in
Chapters 7, 8 or 11. Therefore, vegetable,
fruit or nut products or preparations made
other than by the processes specified in
Chapters 7, 8 or 11 are classifiable in
Chapter 20. The processes specified in
Chapters 7, 8 or 11 mainly include
freezing,
steaming,
boiling,
drying,
provisionally
preserving
and
milling.
Therefore, any vegetable, fruit, nut or
edible parts of a plant which is prepared or
preserved by any other process than these
are liable to be classified under Chapter
20. Heading 2008 covers fruits, nuts and
other edible parts of plants, otherwise
prepared or preserved, whether or not
containing
added
sugar
or
other
sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere,
specified or included. Roasting is a process
used or bringing in to existence roasted
nuts and I find that the processes
mentioned in chapter 8 do not cover
roasting process.

6.4 I also note on the submissions
of the applicant that the Note 3 to Chapter
8 specifies certain treatments that could be
carried out on the dried nuts for additional
preservation or stabilization or to improve
or
maintain
their
appearance.
The
applicant in their application has declared
that the objectives of the roasting are not
as specified in the said note. Further, as
per the above note, the processes that could
be carried out are moderate heat treatment,
sulphuring, and the addition of sorbic acid
or potassium sorbate by the addition of
vegetable oil or small quantities of glucose
syrup. Roasting is different from all the
processes mentioned above. Roasting, as
submitted by the applicant, is carried out
using roasting ovens due to which betel
nuts are roasted in the range of 150
5 All. M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1541
degrees Celsius then cooled in room
temperature and the cycle is repeated until
the moisture content is less than 6%. This
clearly indicates that the roasting is much
more than mild heat treatment. Even in the
generally understood meaning of the terms,
it is understood that roasting involves
severe heat treatment and is different from
moderate heat treatment as well as
dehydration.
Therefore,
the
impugned
goods do not satisfy Note 3 to Chapter 8.

6.5 While examining the scope of
CTH 2008, I find that as per HSN
Explanatory Notes, heading 2008 covers
fruit, nuts end other edible parts of plants,
whether whole, in pieces or crushed,
including mixtures thereof, prepared or
preserved otherwise than by any of the
processes specified in other Chapters or in
the preceding headings of this Chapter,
Specifying what is included in this heading,
the explanatory note states that almonds,
ground nuts, areca or betel nuts and other
nuts, dry-roasted, oil-roasted or fatroasted, whether or not containing or
coated with vegetable oil, salt, flavours,
spices or other additives. Dry roasting, oilroasting & fat-roasting, as a process are
very much a part of chapter heading 2008
by virtue of HSN Explanatory Notes.