Tribunal reclassifies "Albendazole Suspension" under sub-heading 3003.20, not 3003.10. Appeal allowed.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the product "Albendazole Suspension" should be classified under sub-heading No. 3003.20 instead of 3003.10. The Tribunal determined that the product did not meet the criteria to be classified as a patent or proprietary medicament under sub-heading No. 3003.10 as claimed by the lower authorities. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of the product "Albendazole Suspension" under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.10 instead of sub-heading No. 3003.20.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellants contested the classification of their product "Albendazole Suspension" under Chapter sub-heading No. 3003.10 of the Tariff, contrary to their claim for classification under sub-heading No. 3003.20. The lower authorities based their classification on the absence of the term "I.P." immediately after the drug's name on the labels, deeming it not in compliance with the Pharmacopoeia and thus classified it under sub-heading No. 3003.10.

The Tribunal noted Chapter Note No. 2 (ii) to Chapter 30 of Pharmaceutical products, defining "patent or proprietary medicaments" as drugs or medicinal preparations for treatment or prevention, bearing a name not specified in Pharmacopoeia. The note further elaborated that a product bearing a brand name or any mark indicating a trade connection with a person qualifies as a proprietary medicine. However, the labels of the medicaments in question lacked a proprietary connection with the manufacturer, essential for classification as a Patent and Proprietary medicine.

The Tribunal observed that the drug "Domperidone Pediatric Suspension" was specified in the Indian Pharmacopoeia (IP), establishing a clear distinction. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the medicaments in question did not meet the criteria to be classified as patent or proprietary medicaments under Heading No. 3003.10, as asserted by the lower authorities.

In light of the analysis, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the claim for classification under Tariff sub-heading No. 3003.10 was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

---