Calcined calcium phosphate classifiable outside Chapter 25; misdeclaration and documentary evidence sustained confiscation and penalties.

Imported apatite/calcium phosphate processed by calcination or similar treatment was held outside Chapter 25 and classifiable as calcium phosphate under CTI 2835 26 90, because Chapter 25 applies only to natural products in crude form or those subjected merely to mechanical or physical processes. Documentary evidence, including supplier correspondence and the appellant's own request to remove calcination references, supported the finding of misdescription. On that basis, the goods were liable to confiscation and the importing entity was liable to penalty for deliberate misdeclaration and attempted duty concession. The email trail also showed knowing participation by the Director and Manager, so the penalties imposed on them were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods declared as Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate were correctly classifiable under CTI 2510 20 30 or under CTI 2835 26 90; (ii) Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant liable to penalty; (iii) Whether the penalties imposed on the Director and the Manager were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods declared as Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate were correctly classifiable under CTI 2510 20 30 or under CTI 2835 26 90.

Analysis: Chapter 25 covers only natural products in crude form or those subjected merely to mechanical or physical processes without altering chemical structure. Goods subjected to calcination, roasting, thermal decomposition, or chemical processing fall outside Chapter 25. The record, especially the email correspondence between the appellant and the supplier, showed that the goods had undergone processing and were understood by the supplier to fall under Chapter 28. The appellant's request to remove references to calcination supported the conclusion that the description under Chapter 25 was not correct. On that material, the imported goods were treated as calcium phosphate classifiable under Heading 2835.

Conclusion: The classification under CTI 2835 26 90 was upheld and the appellant's classification under CTI 2510 20 30 was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation and the appellant liable to penalty.

Analysis: Since the declared description and classification did not correspond with the true nature of the goods, the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The deliberate misdeclaration and attempt to secure concessional duty also justified the imposition of penalty on the importing entity. The absence of a physical test did not undermine the conclusion because the documentary record was sufficient to establish the nature of the goods and the intent behind the declarations.

Conclusion: Confiscation and the penalty on the appellant were sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalties imposed on the Director and the Manager were sustainable.

Analysis: The email trail and surrounding correspondence showed active involvement in manipulating documents and preparing misleading communications for customs purposes. The Director's conduct supported liability for penalty for intentional participation in the misdeclaration, and the Manager's assistance in document manipulation supported penal liability as well. The findings disclosed knowing participation rather than mere incidental involvement.

Conclusion: The penalties imposed on the Director and the Manager were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was found to suffer from no error, and all the appeals failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that have undergone calcination or similar processing are not classifiable as natural products under Chapter 25, and documentary evidence showing deliberate misdescription and intent to evade duty is sufficient to sustain demand, confiscation, and penal consequences.

---