Contradictory chemical reports cannot sustain classification or demands; retest must be allowed and composition controls.

Where departmental chemical test reports are materially contradictory to earlier reports, supplier documentation and independent testing, the later disputed departmental report should not be relied upon and a reasonable opportunity for retest must be permitted; classification is governed by demonstrated composition and primary function, so a product shown to contain predominantly mineral oil and whose surface-active property is ancillary is classifiable as a petroleum preparation rather than a surface-active preparation; reliance on an unverified contradictory test cannot sustain demands for mis-declaration and limitation principles may bar the show cause notice under the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported product 'TWITCHELL 6808 DEDUSTER' is correctly classifiable under heading 2710 19 90 (petroleum preparations containing 70% or more petroleum oils) or under heading 3402 90 19 (preparations based on organic surface-active agents); (ii) Whether the test report dated 31.07.2020 relied upon by Revenue could be accepted in view of earlier contradictory test reports and the appellant's request for retest, and whether the show cause notice alleging mis-declaration is barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Classification of the imported product between heading 2710 19 90 and heading 3402 90 19.

Analysis: The product was tested on multiple occasions with earlier reports (24.10.2017 and 12.10.2018) and supplier documentation indicating the product contains white mineral oil >=70% by weight, supporting classification under heading 2710 19 90. The Revenue's test memo and the CRCL report of 31.07.2020 addressed properties in Note 3 to Chapter 34 (surface tension and emulsion) and thus pertained to organic surface-active agents rather than demonstrable composition identifying a 'preparation' under 3402 90 19. Explanatory notes to Chapter 34 distinguish between organic surface-active agents and surface-active preparations and require additional constituents or intermixtures for classification as a 'preparation'. The CRCL report did not identify such constituent mixtures or other elements that would convert an organic surface-active agent into a 'preparation' under heading 3402 90 19. Additionally, the primary function of the product, as per supplier literature, is dedusting (a purpose where any surface-active property is ancillary), falling within the exclusions to Chapter 34 where surface-active function is subsidiary to the main function.

Conclusion: The product is not classifiable under heading 3402 90 19; classification under heading 2710 19 90 is correct.

Issue (ii): Acceptability of the CRCL test report dated 31.07.2020, request for retest, and limitation/mis-declaration allegation.

Analysis: The CRCL report of 31.07.2020 is materially inconsistent with earlier CRCL reports and with supplier and independent test-house reports showing predominantly mineral oil content. The appellant requested retest within a reasonable period after receipt of the disputed report and before final adjudication; the request for retest was denied on grounds of delay although the report was not supplied to the appellant prior to issuance of the show cause notice. Pandemic-related extension of limitation and established tribunal precedents on resolving conflicting departmental reports in favour of the assessee weigh against reliance on the later contradictory report. Revenue did not point to any factual mis-declaration by the appellant; the classification dispute arose from interpretation of composition and function, and relevant tests and disclosures had been available to Revenue earlier.

Conclusion: The CRCL report dated 31.07.2020 cannot be relied upon; the appellant's request for retest was justified; there is no proven mis-declaration and the show cause notice is barred by limitation as applied to the facts.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed, confirming classification under heading 2710 19 90 and rejecting classification under heading 3402 90 19; consequential demands and allegations based on the disputed test report are not sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where departmental chemical test reports are materially contradictory and are inconsistent with supplier documentation and independent testing, the disputed departmental report cannot be relied upon without allowing a reasonable retest; classification must follow the composition and primary function demonstrated by consistent evidence, and a classification founded on an unreliable or unverified test cannot sustain demands for mis-declaration.

---