Unmanufactured tobacco classification turns on proof of manufacture; inconclusive testing and missing corroboration cannot sustain duty consequences.

Tobacco powder made only by drying, cutting, sieving, crushing and grinding tobacco leaves, without reliable proof of blending with katha, calcium oxide or flavouring agents, remained unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401 and not manufactured chewing tobacco under Chapter 24. The chemical report was found inconclusive and inconsistent, while an independent university report supported the unmanufactured character of the sample. Confiscation, duty demand and penalties were also held unsustainable because re-testing was not effectively available after the sample was not preserved, cross-examination was denied, and no corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance was produced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the processed tobacco product was classifiable as manufactured chewing tobacco under Chapter 24 or as unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401, and (ii) whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalties could be sustained on the basis of the chemical report and other evidence in the absence of re-testing and proper corroboration.

Issue (i): whether the processed tobacco product was classifiable as manufactured chewing tobacco under Chapter 24 or as unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401

Analysis: The only processes established were drying, cutting, sieving, crushing and grinding of tobacco leaves into powder packed in bulk bags. No mixer or other machinery for blending katha, calcium oxide or flavouring agents was found, and the Revenue did not produce reliable evidence of purchase or use of such additives. The chemical report was inconclusive and inconsistent, while an independent agricultural university report described the sample as purely unmanufactured tobacco. On these facts, the product remained tobacco powder and did not acquire the character of manufactured chewing tobacco.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401, and not under sub-heading 2403 99 10.

Issue (ii): whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalties could be sustained on the basis of the chemical report and other evidence in the absence of re-testing and proper corroboration

Analysis: The matter had earlier been remanded for re-testing, but the sample could not be tested after a long lapse of time attributable to the Revenue's failure to preserve it properly. The appellants had repeatedly sought re-testing and cross-examination, yet no such opportunity was granted. The statements relied upon were not tested through cross-examination, no market enquiry or corroborative evidence of clandestine clearance was produced, and the ownership and export-related materials supported the appellants' version. In these circumstances, the demand, confiscation and penalties lacked sustainable evidentiary basis.

Conclusion: The confiscation, duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside in full and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Tobacco powder obtained by simple processing of tobacco leaves, without reliable proof of manufacture by addition of ingredients or other corroborative evidence, remains unmanufactured tobacco, and adverse duty consequences cannot be upheld on an inconclusive chemical opinion denied proper re-testing and cross-examination.

---