Maize starch classification turned on whether bleaching chemicals created modified starch; mere brightness improvement was insufficient.

Classification of maize starch depended on whether treatment with potassium permanganate and sodium metabisulphite produced a modified starch under Heading 35.05 or only purified and bleached maize starch under Heading 11.03. Applying the HSN explanatory notes, the material change required for modified starch was not established, as mere improvement in whiteness or brightness does not alter the product's essential properties. The record also lacked a reliable contemporaneous test report showing modification during the relevant period. On that evidence, the product was not proved to be modified starch and was classified as starch under Heading 11.03 in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned product, after treatment with potassium permanganate and sodium metabisulphite, remained maize starch classifiable under Tariff Heading 11.03 of the Central Excise Tariff or became modified maize starch classifiable under Tariff Heading 35.05.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on whether the small quantity of chemicals used in processing caused only purification and enhancement of brightness, or brought about a material change in the properties of the starch so as to make it a modified starch. The HSN explanatory notes were treated as the proper guide for classification, and the note to Heading 35.05 indicates that modified starch is distinguished from unmodified starch by changes in properties such as solution and gel clarity, tendency to gel or crystallize, water binding capacity, freeze-thaw stability, gelatinisation temperature, or peak viscosity. Mere improvement in whiteness or brightness was held insufficient. The record also showed that there was no reliable test report of the impugned goods drawn from the relevant period to establish the alleged modification. In the absence of such evidence, and in view of the explanation that the chemicals were used only for purification and bleaching, the classification under Heading 35.05 was not proved.

Conclusion: The impugned goods were not shown to be modified starch classifiable under Heading 35.05 and were held to remain starch classifiable under Heading 11.03, in favour of the assessee.

---