Tariff classification of propylene feed stock and extended limitation depend on purity, disclosure and departmental knowledge.

Tariff classification of propylene/propene feed stock depends on the applicable heading, chapter notes and General Rules for Interpretation, including whether the product is a separate chemically defined compound of the required purity. On the stated record, the material showed a mixture with other hydrocarbons and did not establish the purity basis needed for classification as propene in pure or commercially pure form, so the classification adopted in the adjudication was treated as unsustainable and remanded for reconsideration. The note also states that, where declarations, returns and departmental correspondence already show departmental knowledge, the extended period cannot be invoked absent suppression or wilful misstatement, and penalties linked to that premise do not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether propylene/propene feed stock was classifiable under tariff item 2902 90 90 or under tariff item 2711 14 00; (ii) whether the demand of duty by invoking the extended period and the penalties were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether propylene/propene feed stock was classifiable under tariff item 2902 90 90 or under tariff item 2711 14 00.

Analysis: Classification had to be determined under the tariff headings read with the General Rules for Interpretation and the relevant Chapter Notes. The dispute turned on whether the product was a separate chemically defined compound and on its purity. The record showed that the product was propylene/propene mixed with other hydrocarbons, and the material relied upon in the adjudication did not establish the purity basis necessary to apply the heading for propene in pure or commercially pure state. The reasoning adopted in the adjudication also did not adequately apply the tariff language and the HSN guidance in a legally sustainable manner.

Conclusion: The classification adopted in the impugned order was not sustainable and the matter required reconsideration by the original authority.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty by invoking the extended period and the penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The relevant declarations, returns and departmental correspondence showed that the manufacture and clearance of the product were within the knowledge of the department. In the absence of suppression of facts, wilful misstatement or any positive act intended to evade duty, the extended period could not be invoked. Once the foundation for the extended period failed, the connected penalties and interest based on that premise also could not stand as framed in the adjudication.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period and the penalties were not sustainable on the facts found.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration of classification and consequential liability after giving the assessee an opportunity to place all relevant material.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification of propylene/propene, the decisive factors are the statutory heading, the relevant chapter notes and whether the product is a separate chemically defined compound of the required purity; and the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked absent suppression of facts or wilful misstatement when the material facts were already within departmental knowledge.

---