CAAR refuses advance ruling on roasted areca nut classification in light of Madras High Court ruling

Background of the advance ruling applications

M/s Think Smart Consultant Pvt. Ltd., holding IEC No. AAKCT7479B and PAN AAKCT7479B, filed five applications (Serial Nos. 219/2025-26 and 01–04/2026-27) in Form CAAR-1 before the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings, New Delhi (CAAR). The applications, received on 01.04.2026, sought an advance ruling under Section 28H(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the classification of “Oven Roasted Areca Nut” proposed to be imported from ASEAN member countries.

The assessee, a valid Importer-Exporter Code holder, qualified as an “applicant” under Section 28E(c)(i) of the Customs Act 1962, which defines an applicant as:

(i) a person holding a valid Importer-Exporter Code Number under Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992; or
(ii) a person exporting goods to India; or
(iii) any person with justifiable cause to the satisfaction of the Authority, seeking an advance ruling under Section 28H.

The core request was for a ruling confirming that “Oven Roasted Areca Nut” falls under tariff item 2008 19 91 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Product and claimed classification

Description put forth by the applicant

The assessee indicated that it intended to import “Oven Roasted Areca Nut” from ASEAN member states. Referring to the post-amendment structure of Chapter 20 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, the assessee submitted that fruits, nuts and other edible parts of plants that are prepared or preserved are classified under Heading 2008, and that roasted areca nut is specifically covered under tariff item 2008 19 91. The relevant extract from Heading 2008, as reproduced in the application, is:

2008 — FRUIT, 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.

Nuts, ground-nuts and other seeds, whether or not mixed together:

  • 2008 11 00 – Ground-nuts
  • 2008 19 – Other, including mixtures:
    • 2008 19 10 – Cashew nut, roasted, salted or roasted and salted
    • 2008 19 91 – Other roasted nuts and seeds (including Roasted Areca Nuts)
    • 2008 19 93 – Other nuts, otherwise prepared or preserved
    • 2008 19 94 – Other roasted and fried vegetable products
    • 2008 19 99 – Other

Assessee’s contention on tariff restructuring

The assessee’s stand was that the Madras High Court in M/s Shahnaz International Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.)] had classified roasted areca nut under CTH 2008 19 20. Following subsequent legislative amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2025, the sub-structure under Heading 2008 was recast, and tariff item 2008 19 20 was replaced by 2008 19 91.

On this basis, the assessee argued:

  • The earlier sub-heading 2008 19 20 has become redundant due to restructuring and renumbering.
  • Given this change, a fresh ruling was required to confirm that roasted areca nut is now to be classified under CTH 2008 19 91.
  • There was apprehension that customs field officers might interpret the Madras High Court judgment as no longer applicable because it refers to a superseded tariff item.

The assessee requested either:

  1. A fresh advance ruling classifying the product under 2008 19 91; or,
  2. If the application was to be rejected, a clarificatory observation that the classification adopted by the Madras High Court under 2008 19 20 should, after the tariff restructuring, correspond to 2008 19 91.

Preliminary scrutiny and notice on maintainability

On examining the applications, CAAR observed that the substantive question—classification of roasted areca nut—had already been determined by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s Shahnaz International Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.)], which had placed the product under Heading 2008.

Since Section 28-I(2)(b) of the Customs Act 1962 restricts admission of advance ruling applications where the same issue has already been decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court, CAAR formed a prima facie view that the matter was barred and liable to be rejected at the threshold.