Trade nomenclature for tariff classification must be proved by evidence; unsupported reclassification to sugar confectionery failed.

Classification of the product as sugar confectionery could not be sustained because the Revenue produced no evidence that trade or consumers understood it in that manner. In the absence of material supporting market nomenclature, the Tribunal upheld the classification accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Chapter Heading 2001.10 as a preparation of vegetables, fruits and nuts. The decision confirms that a reclassification claim based on trade understanding must be proved by evidence and cannot rest on assertion alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product manufactured by the respondent was correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading 2001.10 as a preparation of vegetables, fruits and nuts, or under Heading 1704.90 as sugar confectionery.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the Revenue's assertion that the goods were known in the market as sugar confectionery. The Tribunal noted that this plea was unsupported by any evidence before either the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority. In the absence of material showing how the product was understood in trade or by consumers, the Revenue could not displace the classification accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals), which had relied upon prior Tribunal authority and the Board circular.

Conclusion: The product remained classifiable under Chapter Heading 2001.10, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for reclassification on the basis of market nomenclature must be supported by evidence; without proof of trade understanding, the existing classification cannot be disturbed.

---