Case Details: Universal Impex Versus Commissioner of Customs Import, Chennai II (2025) 33 Centax 74 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Krishnan Ramasamy, J
- S/Shri B. Kumar, Senior Counsel for B. Sathish Sundar & Dr. Krishnanandh, for the Petitioner
- Shri K. Umesh Rao, Senior Standing Counsel, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
Universal Impex imported areca nuts declaring them as “roasted areca nuts.” The Revenue treated the goods as “raw areca nuts” and ordered confiscation for misdeclaration. The petitioner relied on the Advance Ruling Authorities’ decision, upheld by the High Court, which fixed the moisture content of roasted areca nuts below 10%. Lab reports from CRCL (Chennai), FSSAI and Indonesia confirmed moisture content below 10%, but Revenue ignored these and relied on a contrary report from CRCL (Delhi). The petitioner contended that raw areca nuts could not survive for long without fungus, whereas the goods had remained intact even after a year, proving them to be roasted.
High Court Held
The Madras High Court allowed the petition, holding that the parameters fixed by the Advance Ruling Authorities had attained finality and were binding on the Revenue. Since all laboratory reports showed moisture content below 10%, the goods were clearly roasted areca nuts. The Revenue acted in non-application of mind by ignoring scientific reports and binding rulings, and overstepped its jurisdiction while passing the order. The Court further observed that both raw and roasted areca nuts are not prohibited goods and that any further delay in clearance would cause economic waste. Accordingly, the Court directed the Revenue to release the goods within two working days, noting that the consignments had remained intact for over a year which itself proved that they were roasted areca nuts.
List Of Case Cited
- Commissioner v. Shahnaz Commodities International Pvt. Ltd. — 2023 (386) E.L.T. 214 (Mad.) = (2023) 9 Centax 183 (Mad.)
