Tribunal confirms tariff classification for 'Renadyl' as 'miscellaneous edible prep' over 'probiotic'

The Tribunal upheld the classification of 'Renadyl bulk probiotic dietary supplement capsules' as 'miscellaneous edible preparations' under tariff item 2106 90 99, rejecting the appellant's claim for classification under tariff item 3002 90 30. The concessional rate of customs duty was denied, and the normal recovery period was applied due to lack of evidence for extended recovery. The penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act was set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal on penalty and confiscation liabilities, while upholding the recovery of the differential duty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Applicability of concessional rate of customs duty.
3. Invocation of extended period for recovery under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962.
4. Imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant, M/s Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, disputed the classification of 'Renadyl bulk probiotic dietary supplement capsules' imported from the USA. The customs authorities classified the goods under tariff item 2106 90 99 as 'miscellaneous edible preparations,' while the appellant claimed classification under tariff item 3002 90 30 as 'cultures of micro-organisms (excluding yeast)' within chapter 30 of the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal noted that the goods, described as food supplements and marked 'not for medicinal use,' did not meet the criteria for pharmaceutical products and upheld the classification under heading 2106, citing the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) and international rulings.

2. Applicability of Concessional Rate of Customs Duty:
The appellant sought a concessional rate of basic customs duty (BCD) at 5% and integrated goods and services tax (IGST) at 12% under notifications no. 50/2017-Cus and no. 01/2017 respectively. The Tribunal held that the classification adopted by the customs authorities, which imposed a BCD of 50% and IGST of 18%, was correct. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere enumeration in the exemption notification does not render all 'probiotics' classifiable within heading 3002.

3. Invocation of Extended Period for Recovery:
The Tribunal found no evidence of misdeclaration or suppression in the bills of entry filed by the appellant. It concluded that the ingredients essential to invoking the extended period of limitation under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 did not exist. Therefore, the demand for differential duty was restricted to the normal period of limitation, which is two years from the relevant date.

4. Imposition of Penalty:
The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, as it found no material particular withheld in connection with the clearance of goods for home consumption. Consequently, the goods were not liable for confiscation, and the penalty did not arise.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the liability to confiscation and the penalty imposed. The recovery of differential duty was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---