Marketability and tariff description control classification of crushed fruit products, requiring fresh factual verification before final treatment.

Marketability is a prerequisite for tariff classification, so crushed fruit products must be shown to be in a marketable condition before classification can be sustained. The applicability of the disputed sub-heading also depends on whether the goods were packed in a unit container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number, which requires factual verification of the packing. Classification under Chapter 8 further depends on whether the product continues to answer the tariff description of edible fruit after crushing and addition of preservatives. Where these factual and tariff-description issues remain unresolved, the proper course is de novo reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the crushed fruits were marketable goods for the purpose of classification; (ii) whether the goods were packed in a unit container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number so as to attract the disputed sub-heading; and (iii) whether the product satisfied the description of edible fruit under Chapter 8, or was liable to be classified as other.

Issue (i): whether the crushed fruits were marketable goods for the purpose of classification.

Analysis: Marketability is a prerequisite for classification under the tariff. The appellant disputed that the goods were in a marketable condition and contended that the revenue had not shown the basis for treating them as marketable. The question depended on factual verification and the appellant was entitled to produce evidence to rebut the revenue's stand.

Conclusion: The issue required fresh examination and supported remand.

Issue (ii): whether the goods were packed in a unit container designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number so as to attract the disputed sub-heading.

Analysis: The applicable section note defining unit container had to be applied to the packing in which the goods were transported. The appellant specifically disputed that the container was designed to hold a pre-determined quantity or number, and no evidence had been led by either side to conclusively resolve the point.

Conclusion: The issue required factual verification and supported remand.

Issue (iii): whether the product satisfied the description of edible fruit under Chapter 8, or was liable to be classified as other.

Analysis: For classification under Chapter 8, the product had to answer the tariff description of edible fruit, and the section notes remained relevant. The appellant contended that, after crushing and addition of preservatives, the product no longer answered that description. The materials on record were insufficient to decide the matter conclusively.

Conclusion: The issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The impugned classification order was set aside and the matter was sent back for de novo adjudication on all disputed factual and tariff issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Marketability and conformity with the relevant tariff description and section notes are essential preconditions for classification, and disputed factual questions on these aspects warrant remand for fresh adjudication.

---