Chocolate flavour classification turns on tariff description; disclosure at clearance also defeats extended limitation for customs demand.

Imported chocolate flavour was treated as a flavouring preparation for addition to food, not as a cocoa-based food preparation for direct consumption, so classification under Customs Tariff Heading 1806 9090 was held unsustainable on the tariff description and chapter notes. The note also states that where the Bill of Entry disclosed the relevant particulars and the goods were cleared on self-assessment and out of charge, a later disagreement on classification does not by itself establish suppression. On that basis, the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 was considered unavailable when the notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imported chocolate flavour was classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3302 as a mixture of odoriferous substances or under Customs Tariff Heading 1806 as chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked.

Issue (i): Whether imported chocolate flavour was classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3302 as a mixture of odoriferous substances or under Customs Tariff Heading 1806 as chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the tariff description and the relevant chapter notes. On the facts found, the imported product was a flavouring substance meant to be added to food and not a food preparation for direct consumption. The residuary entry in Chapter 18 applied only to chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa, and the record did not establish that the imported item answered that description. The Tribunal also accepted that the product description and supporting material indicated a flavouring preparation rather than a cocoa food preparation.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 1806 9090 and the classification adopted in the impugned order was unsustainable; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked.

Analysis: The Bill of Entry disclosed the relevant particulars and the goods were cleared after self-assessment and out of charge. In those circumstances, no suppression of facts for classification could be attributed to the importer merely because the department later differed on classification. Since the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period from the date of out of charge, the extended period was not available on the facts accepted by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and invocation of the extended period was not justified; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained, the demand did not survive, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A flavouring preparation meant for addition to food cannot be classified as a cocoa food preparation absent satisfaction of the tariff description and chapter notes, and where the importer has disclosed the relevant particulars at clearance, a later classification dispute does not by itself establish suppression for invoking the extended limitation period.

---