Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Relevance of Common Parlance Test vis-a-vis Specific Tariff Entry in determining Classification:

A perusal of the relevant entries under CTH 08, 20 and 21 would show that while CTH 08 is meant to cover areca nut whole, split, grounded including dried nuts subject to the process of drying which is by way of additional preservation or stabilization by moderate heat treatment, sulphuring, the addition of sorbic acid or potassium sorbate, Chapter 20 covers roasted nuts. Apparently, legislature has for the purpose of classification treated drying and roasting as processes which are distinct/different and importantly, relevant in determining whether the nuts would fall under CTH 0802 or under 2008. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that roasted areca nut is in common parlance treated as areca nut, in other words, by the process

(emphasis supplied)

9. From a reading of the above judgment, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the legislature while classifying shrimps, prawns and lobsters and treating it differently/separately from frozen shrimps, prawns lobsters

- 62 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15737 HC-KAR by placing it under different entries, has unconcerned as to whether the two products are commercially same. This is, in view of the fact that legislature was competent to classify the products separately/differently even though they are commercially one and the same. Thus, the question of examining whether arecanut/betel nut and roasted areca nut are commercially the same or otherwise, is an enquiry which is alien in determining the classification which ought to be made on the basis of the Tariff entries. Once legislature has chosen/provided for separate and independent entry under the Tariff for roasted areca nut, it is no longer necessary nor open to examine whether roasted areca nut is commercially the same as areca nut or whether the process of roasting results in emergence of a commercially new/different commodity having a different name, character and use. It really does not matter whether roasting of betel nut results in emergence of a new commodity for even if it does not, it is still open to the legislature to classify the product differently. Once the legislature has classified roasted betel/arecanut under a separate entry, it is not open to the Revenue to discard/abandon the entries in the Tariff while examining/determining the classification of the product.

35. Additionally, this court finds that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its judgement on Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA) No's 600/2023, No. 1206/2023 and No. 1750/2023, dated 01.08.2023, had upheld the classification of 'Roasted areca Nuts' under CTH 2008 19 20. Further, this court takes

- 80 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15737 HC-KAR Judicial notice of the recent development, wherein a Notification No. 02/2025-26 dated 02.04.2025 has been issued by the Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, relating to "amendment in import policy and policy condition of Roasted Areca Nuts falling under ITC(HS) Code 2008 19 20 of chapter 20 of ITC(HS), 2022, Schedule-I(Import Policy). The effect of the said notification is that the import policy of 'roasted Areca nuts' falling under ITC (HS) Code 08028090 and 2008 19 20 stands revised from "free" to "prohibited" and a kind of clarification has been sought to be given by the department, that as far as the Tariff entry 2008 19 20 relating to other roasted nuts and seeds are concerned, "roasted areca nuts" are not covered as they are specifically covered under 08028090.

44. For all the above reasons, Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025 deserves to be allowed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court while directing for the release of the commodity imported as 'roasted areca nuts" classified under CTH 2008 19 20 on usual compliances of the prevailing rules, hereby quashes the seizure memo dated 10/03/2025. It is made clear that this court has only

- 87 -

NC: 2026:KHC:15737 HC-KAR dealt with the issue relating to classification of the 'roasted areca nuts' imported by the petitioner under CTH 2008 19 20 and has not expressed any opinion on the other avenues of the import or any issue not raised in these Appeal/petitions. Further, it is directed that since, these 'roasted areca nuts' had been imported some six months ago, the aforesaid direction for release, is subject to the condition that the importer provides for treatment of these roasted areca nuts by 'Gamma Irradiation process', wherein the moulds and insect's in nuts can be sterilized/ treated as per the proposition of treatment laid down by the Bhaba Atomic research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, to the compete satisfaction of the authority.