Chapter 29 classification prevails for Calcium Gluconate I.P.; medicament treatment and extended limitation were rejected.

Calcium Gluconate I.P. was treated as a separately chemically defined organic compound under Chapter 29, because the product was specifically covered as a gluconic acid salt and the record did not show manufacture and packing as a medicament for therapeutic or prophylactic use. On that basis, it was not classifiable under Heading 3003 as a medicament. The discussion also notes that the extended period of limitation could not be applied beyond the scope of the prior remand and that penalty was not sustainable on the facts. The operative result was classification under CETH 2918.00, with demand beyond the normal period and penalties deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Calcium Gluconate I.P. manufactured by the appellants was classifiable under Chapter 29 as a separate chemically defined organic compound or under Heading 3003 as a medicament. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable.

Issue (i): Whether Calcium Gluconate I.P. manufactured by the appellants was classifiable under Chapter 29 as a separate chemically defined organic compound or under Heading 3003 as a medicament.

Analysis: Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 29 applies to separate chemically defined organic compounds, while Chapter Note 2(i)(a) of Chapter 30 covers products comprising two or more constituents mixed or compounded together for therapeutic or prophylactic use. The product in question was Calcium Gluconate IP, specifically covered under Chapter 29 and reflected in the tariff structure as a gluconic acid salt. The material and labels showed industrial use, and the record did not establish that it was manufactured and packed as a medicament intended for therapeutic or prophylactic use. The cited precedents and circular did not displace the specific coverage under Chapter 29.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable under CETH 2918.00 and not under Heading 3003.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation and penalty were invocable.

Analysis: The earlier order had limited the demand to the normal period and no appeal had been filed by the Department against that restriction. On remand, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner could not enlarge the demand beyond the remand scope. The record also did not sustain penalty in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invocable and the penalties were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The classification demand was upheld, but the demand beyond the normal period and the penalties were deleted, resulting in only a limited duty liability with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a product is specifically covered as a separate chemically defined organic compound under Chapter 29, it cannot be classified as a medicament under Chapter 30 merely because it may have pharmaceutical applications; extended limitation and penalty cannot be sustained beyond the scope of the prior order and remand.

---