Customs Tariff classification of squid liver/meal powder affirmed as animal feed preparation; reclassification and penalties sustained.

Classification of imported squid liver/meal powder turned on compositional analysis and the essential character of the mixture: substantial soyabean meal (4050%) rendered the product a preparation used in animal feeding and therefore classifiable under Heading 2309 rather than 2301. Show Cause Notices were held factually and legally sufficient to sustain reclassification and demands. Non-disclosure of soyabean content amounted to suppression of material facts, justifying invocation of the extended limitation period and attendant penal consequences. Penalty for suppression and confiscation for mis-declaration were upheld as statutory consequences, and appeals against these findings were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Squid Powder / Squid Liver Powder is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2301 or under Heading 2309; (ii) Whether re-classification and confirmation of demand are sustainable when the Show Cause Notices do not clearly and specifically propose re-classification with cogent reasons; (iii) Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is legally permissible on the facts of the case; (iv) Whether penalties under Section 114A and confiscation under Section 111(m) are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Squid Powder / Squid Liver Powder is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2301 or under Heading 2309?

Analysis: The imported product consists of squid liver paste mixed with substantial quantities (approximately 4050%) of soyabean meal. Heading 2301 covers flours, meals and pellets obtained by processing animal materials without admixture of other substantive ingredients. Heading 2309 covers preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, including mixtures of animal and vegetable materials and preparations for use in making complete or supplementary feeds, as explained in the HSN Explanatory Notes and Chapter Notes. Precedent decisions of the Tribunal treating marine-origin materials blended with substantial vegetable-origin nutrients as falling under Heading 2309 were applied to materially identical composition, manufacture and end-use facts. The composition shows the vegetable-origin ingredient is formative and determinative of the product's character, and the product functions as a feed ingredient/preparation used in animal feeding.

Conclusion: The product is classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 2309 and not under Heading 2301.

Issue (ii): Whether re-classification and confirmation of demand are sustainable when the Show Cause Notices do not clearly and specifically propose re-classification with cogent reasons?

Analysis: The Show Cause Notices specifically alleged mis-classification under Heading 2301, proposed classification under Heading 2309, and stated factual and legal bases including composition, manufacturing process, intended use, and relevant Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes. The appellants responded substantively and availed hearings and opportunities to rebut. Authorities require that a notice convey the substance of allegations and grounds; hypertechnical drafting deficiencies do not invalidate a notice where the notice places the importer on adequate notice and affords opportunity to respond.

Conclusion: The re-classification and consequential demands are sustainable; the Show Cause Notices were adequate.

Issue (iii): Whether invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act is legally permissible in the facts of the present cases?

Analysis: The presence of substantial soyabean meal (4050%) is a material fact central to tariff classification and duty liability. The Bills of Entry did not disclose this composition detail and described the goods merely as squid powder/liver powder. Clearance under RMS does not absolve the importer of statutory disclosure obligations. Established authorities permit invocation of the extended period where suppression of material facts affecting classification is shown; bona fide belief is not a defence where primary facts are withheld.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period under Section 28(4) is legally valid and sustainable.

Issue (iv): Whether penalties under Section 114A and confiscation under Section 111(m) are sustainable?

Analysis: Once suppression of material facts within the meaning of Section 28(4) is established, statutory penalty under Section 114A follows and mis-declaration of composition rendering classification and duty liability incorrect attracts confiscation under Section 111(m). No adequate mitigating circumstances for waiver or reduction of penalty were demonstrated.

Conclusion: Penalties under Section 114A and confiscation under Section 111(m) are sustainable.

Final Conclusion: On the facts and law considered, the classification, invocation of the extended period, penalties and confiscation as adjudicated are upheld and the appeals are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an imported product is a formulated mixture containing substantial vegetable-origin components that are formative of its character and intended as a preparation for animal feeding, it falls under Heading 2309 rather than Heading 2301; nondisclosure of such material composition amounts to suppression permitting invocation of Section 28(4) and consequent penalties and confiscation.

---