Raw tobacco classification turns on essential character; quimam and perfume treatment did not convert it into chewing tobacco.

Raw tobacco treated with quimam and perfumes remained classifiable as raw or unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401.10, because the treatment did not irreversibly convert it into chewing tobacco. The reasoning followed the earlier Tribunal view in Yogesh Associates, which treated similar processed raw leaf tobacco as retaining its essential character. The Supreme Court ruling in Gopal Zarda Udyog was confined to quimam itself and did not control cases involving raw tobacco treated with quimam. On the facts, the product did not satisfy the description of chewing tobacco or a preparation containing chewing tobacco under Heading 2404.40.

---

---

Issues: Classification of raw tobacco treated with quimam and perfumes, and whether it was classifiable as chewing tobacco under Heading 2404.40 or as raw/unmanufactured tobacco under Heading 2401.10.

Analysis: The product was identical to the commodity considered in the earlier Tribunal decision in Yogesh Associates, where raw tobacco treated with quimam and perfumes was held to remain raw leaf tobacco and not to undergo such irreversible change as to become chewing tobacco. The Supreme Court ruling in Gopal Zarda Udyog concerned quimam itself and not raw tobacco treated with quimam, and therefore did not govern the present facts. On the facts found, the product did not answer the description of chewing tobacco or a preparation containing chewing tobacco.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable under Heading 2401.10 and not under Heading 2404.40, and the assessee succeeded.

---