Plant growth regulator classification failed where product composition showed micronutrients, not a separately defined chemical compound.

Classification turned on whether the product was a plant growth regulator under Chapter 38 or a fertilizer. The Chemical Examiner's report referred to nutrients and noted that auxins and cytokinins are used as growth regulators, but it did not quantify their presence or establish that the product was a separate chemically defined element or compound. The product literature described a mixture of micronutrients and other ingredients, pointing to nutrient replenishment rather than direct use as a plant growth regulator. On that material, the product was not proved to fall under the growth regulator heading, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned product was classifiable as a plant growth regulator under Chapter 38 or as a fertilizer and, consequently, whether the demand, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The Chemical Examiner's report noted the presence of several nutrients and only indicated that auxins and cytokinins were known to be used as plant growth regulators, without quantifying their presence. The product literature described the product as a mixture of micronutrients and other ingredients and did not establish that it was meant for direct application as a plant growth regulator. The composition disclosed nutrient-replenishing ingredients commonly found in fertilizers, and the report did not show that the product was a separate chemically defined element or compound, which was necessary for classification as a plant growth regulator under the relevant chapter note.

Conclusion: The product was not proved to be a plant growth regulator and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---