Customs classification of calcite powder failed where laboratory evidence was inadequate to justify reclassification as calcium carbonate.

Calcite powder classification depended on whether the customs laboratory report could support reclassification as calcium carbonate under heading 28365000. The report identified the goods as calcium carbonate, but it did not establish the technical parameters required for precipitated calcium carbonate under the relevant Indian Standard, and the laboratory lacked the facility to test calcite powder at the relevant time. Technical literature, product description, and the absence of independent evidence supporting reclassification favoured the importer's declared heading 25369030. The departmental attempt to rely on the laboratory report and contemporaneous imports was insufficient, so the duty demand, interest, fine, and penalties based on the reclassification could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported calcite powder was classifiable under heading 28365000 as calcium carbonate, or under heading 25369030 as declared by the importer, when the customs laboratory report was the principal basis for the departmental classification.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the evidentiary value of the customs laboratory report and whether it could displace the declared classification. The laboratory report only identified the goods as calcium carbonate, but that by itself was insufficient to place the goods under heading 28365000. For that heading, the goods had to conform to the relevant Indian Standard parameters, including the technical characteristics applicable to precipitated calcium carbonate, which were not shown to have been tested. The Board circulars acknowledged that the Kandla Customs Laboratory was not equipped at the relevant time to test calcite powder, and a report from a laboratory lacking the requisite facility could not form a reliable basis for reclassification. The importer's reliance on technical literature, product description, and the absence of evidence showing the product to be precipitated calcium carbonate was found to be well founded. The contrary departmental reliance on laboratory report and contemporaneous imports was held insufficient to dislodge the declared classification.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under heading 25369030 as declared by the importer, and the departmental classification under heading 28365000 failed.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand, interest, fine, and penalties based on the disputed reclassification could not be sustained, and the importer succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff classification based solely on a laboratory report cannot be sustained where the laboratory lacked the facility to test the relevant product and no independent cogent evidence establishes the proposed reclassification.

---