Tariff classification depends on chapter notes and interpretative rules, not end use alone for imported isomer mixtures.

Tariff classification must follow the tariff entry, chapter notes and interpretative rules, and cannot be based on end use alone. Imported goods proposed for use in fragrances and flavour formulas were not classifiable under Heading 3302 merely on that basis. A mixture of two isomers remained within Chapter 29 under Chapter Note 1(b), which expressly preserves such mixtures in that chapter. Chapter Note 1(e) also did not apply because there was no proof that the goods contained a solvent or were put up in a solvent making them suitable only for a specific use. The lower classification was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were classifiable as synthetic perfumery compounds under Heading 3302 merely because they were proposed to be used as raw material in fragrances and flavour formulas. (ii) Whether a product consisting of two isomers remained classifiable in Chapter 29 under Chapter Note 1(b). (iii) Whether Chapter Note 1(e) to Chapter 29 applied in the absence of proof that the imported product contained a solvent making it suitable only for a specific use.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were classifiable as synthetic perfumery compounds under Heading 3302 merely because they were proposed to be used as raw material in fragrances and flavour formulas.

Analysis: Classification has to be determined from the tariff description, chapter notes, section notes, and the rules of interpretation. The mere fact that a product may be used as a raw material for manufacture of another product does not by itself decide its tariff classification. The only basis relied upon for shifting the goods to Heading 3302 was end use, without reference to the proper tariff criteria.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Heading 3302 on the basis of end use alone, and this view was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether a product consisting of two isomers remained classifiable in Chapter 29 under Chapter Note 1(b).

Analysis: Chapter Note 1(b) specifically provides that mixtures of two or more isomers of the same organic compound remain within Chapter 29. The imported product was treated as a mixture of two isomers, and that character brought it within Chapter 29 rather than taking it out of that chapter.

Conclusion: The product remained classifiable in Chapter 29 under Chapter Note 1(b), in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether Chapter Note 1(e) to Chapter 29 applied in the absence of proof that the imported product contained a solvent making it suitable only for a specific use.

Analysis: Chapter Note 1(e) applies where the relevant product is dissolved in a solvent that constitutes a normal and necessary method of putting it up and does not make it particularly suitable for a specific use. No evidence was produced that any solvent formed part of the imported goods, and there was also no proof that any solvent made the product suitable only for one use.

Conclusion: Chapter Note 1(e) was inapplicable on the facts, in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the lower authorities was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Tariff classification must be determined primarily by the tariff entry read with the relevant chapter notes and interpretative rules, and end use cannot override a specific chapter note that keeps mixtures of isomers within the same chapter unless the conditions of a competing exclusionary note are proved.

---