Product classification appeal denied for Kaolin Light IP & NF - evidence needed for correct classification under Customs Tariff Act.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to classify the product, Kaolin Light IP & NF, under Chapter 2505.10 instead of Chapter 30 as a medicament. The appellant failed to prove the product met the criteria for classification as a medicament under Chapter 30, such as containing multiple constituents or being packaged for retail sale or hospital use. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence to support classification claims under the Customs Tariff Act.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of product under Chapter 2505.10 or 3003.20.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the classification of a product, Kaolin Light IP & NF, under Chapter 2505.10 or 3003.20. The appellant contended that the product should be classified under Chapter 30 as a medicament, relying on Chapter Notes that exclude medicaments from Chapter 25. The appellant argued that the lower authorities' decision was incorrect. The respondent, however, argued that the product falls under 2505.10, citing relevant provisions. The Tribunal noted that Kaolin falls under Chapter 2505.10 unless proven to be a medicament under Chapter 30. The definition of medicaments in Chapter 30 requires products to contain two or more constituents mixed for therapeutic use or be unmixed products in measured doses or retail packings. The appellant failed to provide evidence supporting the product's classification as a medicament. It was acknowledged that the product was sold in bulk, not in retail packings or measured doses. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the product is classified under 2505.10 and dismissed the appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of classifying the product under Chapter 2505.10 based on the lack of evidence supporting its classification as a medicament under Chapter 30. The appellant's failure to demonstrate that the product met the criteria for a medicament, such as containing multiple constituents or being packaged for retail sale or hospital use, led to the dismissal of the appeals. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support classification claims and adhering to the defined criteria for specific classifications under the Customs Tariff Act.

---