Tobacco classification requires proper chemical testing before treating seized goods as manufactured and sustaining confiscation or penalty.

Chewing tobacco seized by the department could not be treated as manufactured tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.04 without proper proof of its true character. Because samples were drawn at seizure and remained in Revenue custody, they should have been sent for chemical examination; the department's failure to do so meant classification was not satisfactorily established. A partner's statement alone was insufficient to prove manufacture, particularly where the Board's clarification indicated that unmanufactured tobacco merely broken, sieved, and packed for chewing remained classifiable under Heading 24.01. On that record, duty liability, confiscation, and penalty were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seized chewing tobacco was dutiable as manufactured tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.04 or was classifiable as unmanufactured tobacco under Tariff Heading 24.01, and whether the order of confiscation and penalty could be sustained without chemical examination of the samples drawn at the time of seizure.

Analysis: Samples had been drawn by the seizing officers at the time of seizure, and the goods were in the Revenue's possession. In these circumstances, the sample could and should have been sent for chemical examination to determine the true character of the tobacco. The finding was that the basic question of classification was not satisfactorily established by the department. The statement of the partner alone was held insufficient to conclude that the goods were manufactured tobacco liable to duty under Heading 24.04, especially when the Board's clarification indicated that unmanufactured tobacco merely broken, sieved, and packed for chewing remained classifiable under Heading 24.01.

Conclusion: The seizure could not be treated as established dutiable manufactured tobacco, and the confiscation and penalty were not sustainable on the record.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the classification of excisable goods is disputed and samples drawn at seizure are available with the department, the Revenue must establish the goods' true character by proper examination before sustaining duty liability, confiscation, or penalty.

---