9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. The respondent herein filed CAAR/Mum/ARC/72/2023 before the learned Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, seeking advance ruling on the classification of Roasted Area Nut/Beetle Nut and Roasted Area Nut/Beetle Nut Cut, contending that the respondent intends to import Roasted Area Nut/Beetle Nut and Roasted Area Nut/Beetle Nut Cut from Indonesia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Srilanka, Thailand, Cambodia into India through Seaports at Chennai, Tuticorin and Mumbai. However, since the process of Roasting is not specifically defined in the Customs Tariff Act or in the Chapter Notes, but only in the HSN explanatory notes, the respondent sought clarification from the Advance Ruling Authority. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai, by impugned order, held that Roasted Area Nut/Beetle Nut and Roasted Area Nut/Beetle Nut Cut would fall under Custom Tariff Heading 2008, specifically CTI 2008 19 20 'Other roasted nuts and seeds' of Chapter 20 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Against the said order, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, is on appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Advance Ruling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be only for the purpose of drying, and hence, purported roasted Areca nuts are rightly classifiable under Chapter 08, specifically under CTH 080280. After the process of roasting, the end-product remains dried areca nut, which is well defined in Chapter 8. It is also contended that the Authority for advance ruling has erred in holding that the processes mentioned in Chapter 8 are different from the process performed on impugned goods and hence they are excluded from Chapter 8 for the purpose of classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the respondent though submitted that 'Roasted Areca/Betel nuts' are specifically covered under Chapter Heading 2008, such assertion would not support his case, as the process said to have been performed on areca nuts in the instant case is adequately covered under Chapter 8 in the form of 'moderate heat treatment' which will change the colour of any food item, but that by itself would not mean that the essential characteristics of the item processed are changed. He further submitted that Authority for advance ruling did not order to test the impugned goods and solely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the goods of this heading are preparations of fruits or nuts presented in packaged condition after manufacturing which needs to be specifically stored and preserved before consumption. However, the processes said to be performed on the areca nuts are only to dry without any reference to packaging and any specific manufacturing process. The respondent has not submitted anything about the packaging of the goods and generally, these goods are imported in bulk in jumbo bags. The goods under dispute are Areca Nuts in the same form as those classified under Chapter 08 and hence, they are clearly excluded from the scope of the Chapter Heading 2008. But the advance ruling authority without considering the above facts has come to the wrong conclusion on a partial reading of the HSN Explanatory Notes. The explanatory notes, if considered holistically, would provide for the inclusion of Areca nuts in Chapter 20 only if they are presented in the packaged condition specified therein. In the present case, the proposed import is in the bulk form and therefore it cannot be covered within the ambit of Chapter 20. It is also contended that during the personal hearing on 30.10.2023, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court had held that the legislature while classifying shrimps, prawns and lobsters and treating it differently / separately from frozen shrimps, prawns lobsters 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try and a special law/ entry dealing with same aspect are in question, the rule adopted and applied is one of harmonious construction, whereby the general law to the extent dealt with by the special law, would yield to the Special Law/Entry. This principle finds its origins in the Latin maxim of generaliaspecialibus non derogant i.e. general law yields to special law should they operate in the same field on same subject. The maxim generaliaspecialibus non derogant is dealt with in Vol. 44(1) of the 4th Edn. of Halsbury-s Laws of England at Para 1300, as follows: ?The principle descends clearly from decisions of the House of Lords in Seward v. Vera Cruz [(1884) LR 10 AC 59 ] and the Privy Council in Barker v. Edger [1898 AC 748 )] and has been affirmed and put into effect on many occasions?. Corpus Juris Secundum, 82 C.J.S. Statutes 482 states: when construing a general and aspecific statute pertaining to the same topic, it is necessary to consider the statutes as consistent with one another and such statutes therefore should be harmonised, if possible, with the objective of giving effect to a consistent legislative policy. On the other hand, where a general statute and a specific s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
