CESTAT allows appeal on classification of imported chemical mixture under Chapter 29 instead of heading 33.02

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed appellant's appeal regarding classification of imported Tetramethyldodehdronaphto Furan (TF). Revenue sought reclassification from Chapter 29 to heading 33.02, arguing goods were used as raw material for synthetic perfumery compounds. CESTAT held that classification must be determined per tariff heading descriptions, chapter notes, and interpretation rules. Since the product was admittedly a mixture of two isomers, it remained classifiable under Chapter 29 per Chapter Note 1(b). Revenue's reliance on Chapter Note 1(e) failed as no evidence showed the product contained solvents making it suitable for single use only. Order-in-original was set aside.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as perfume base, reliance on chemical nomenclature, misclassification by the appellant, interpretation of chapter notes for classification.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of classification claimed by the appellant for goods imported by them. The appellant argued that the imported goods were aroma chemicals that, when mixed with essential oils, became a perfume base for manufacturing synthetic perfumery compounds used in industrial fragrances. The appellant emphasized that the imported item did not contain alcohol and was governed by chemical nomenclature rules, specifically the IUPAC nomenclature. The appellant contended that the product should be classified under Chapter Tariff Heading 2932 as a Heterocyclic Compound, citing examples and explanations to support their classification claim.

The appellant raised concerns regarding the description of the product as a synthetic compound for manufacturing synthetic perfumery compounds in the order-in-original, highlighting a lack of clarity and self-contradiction in the adjudicating authority's reasoning. The appellant argued that the product, despite being a mixture of isomers, did not change its classification. They also presented evidence of the same product being classified under a specific heading in various custom formations, indicating consistency in classification across different jurisdictions.

The authorized representative relied on the impugned order, which rejected the appellant's classification claim based on the intended use of the goods in manufacturing synthetic perfumery compounds. The order-in-original cited reasons for rejecting the classification claimed by the appellant, emphasizing the end use of the goods for manufacturing industrial fragrances. However, the appellate tribunal found the grounds for seeking a change in classification untenable, emphasizing that classification should be based on tariff headings, chapter notes, and rules of interpretation.

The tribunal analyzed the relevant chapter notes and rules of interpretation to determine the correct classification of the goods. It concluded that the product, being a mixture of isomers, should be classified under Chapter 29 based on Chapter Note 1(b) regarding mixtures of isomers of the same compound. The tribunal rejected the application of Chapter Note 1(e) to Chapter 29, as there was no evidence that the product contained solvents making it suitable for a specific use. Ultimately, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the correct interpretation of classification rules and notes.

---