Product classification dispute turns on proof of insecticidal function before MRP-based valuation can apply.

The product marketed as "Vipul Booster" was examined for classification under Chapter 3808.10 as an insecticide, which would justify valuation under Section 4A on MRP basis, or as a plant growth promoter under Chapter 3808.20. Although the formulation contained triacontanol, the department had to prove that the diluted product functioned as an insecticide in the form sold. The record did not show insecticidal use or marketing as an insecticide, and the evidentiary burden for the claimed classification and MRP-based valuation was not discharged. The proposed insecticide classification was therefore not established, and the related valuation demand could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product marketed as "Vipul Booster" was classifiable as an insecticide under Chapter Sub-heading 3808.10, so as to attract valuation on MRP basis under Section 4A, or whether it was a plant growth promoter classifiable under Chapter Heading 3808.20.

Analysis: The product contained triacontanol, but the department had to establish that the diluted formulation functioned as an insecticide. The product was not marketed as an insecticide, and the record did not show that it could act as one in the form sold. The evidentiary burden to justify the classification and the consequential MRP-based valuation lay on the department, which had not produced proof that the product had insecticidal function in its diluted form.

Conclusion: The product was not proved to be classifiable as an insecticide and the demand based on MRP valuation could not be sustained.

---