Areca Nut Imports Below Minimum Import Price Liable for Absolute Confiscation: Delhi HC Dismisses Importer’s Writ [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court held that areca nut imports made below the Minimum Import Price can be treated as prohibited goods and can be absolutely confiscated, and it dismissed the importer’s writ after finding that the statutory appeal was time-barred and the writ was filed after huge delay.

Bhagwan Corporation imported two consignments at ICD Patparganj and filed Bills of Entry dated 31.10.2020 and 04.12.2020. The goods were declared as “Boiled Betel Nuts” and classified under CTH 2106 90 30. Customs drew samples and sent them to CRCL. The goods were warehoused meanwhile. Customs also relied on RMCC inputs saying importers were misclassifying areca nuts to bypass the Minimum Import Price condition.

CRCL gave reports in January 2021. After this, the importer asked many times for re-testing and relied on Indonesian certificates and other documents, but re-testing was not allowed. Customs issued a show cause notice dated 19.05.2021 proposing reclassification under CTH 0802 80 10 and confiscation and penalty.

By Order-in-Original dated 24.09.2021, Customs rejected the declared classification, reclassified the goods as areca nuts, ordered absolute confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) without giving redemption under Section 125, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs.

The importer filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in November 2022, but it was delayed by 156 days, which was beyond the condonable period, and was dismissed on grounds of limitation in January 2024. The importer then filed writ petition in December 2025, mainly challenging absolute confiscation and penalty, and not challenging classification.

The importer argued that it was bona fide, CRCL report was not final, re-testing was wrongly denied, and redemption under Section 125 should have been granted. Customs argued that areca nuts even if boiled remain under Chapter 8, Minimum Import Price of ₹251/kg applies, and since CIF value was much below, the goods were prohibited. Customs also argued that writ cannot be used after losing appeal due to delay.

Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that the appeal was beyond the maximum period allowed under Section 128 and could not be condoned. The Court also observed that writ was filed after a long delay and Article 226 is discretionary, especially in fiscal matters. The Court observed that Section 125 uses “may” and redemption is not automatic, mainly when goods are treated as prohibited.

In view of this, the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with the absolute confiscation and penalty.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates