TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (6) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led ABBALIDE. The appellants sought clearance of the goods under the provisions of Open General Licence - Appendix 6 (1) of the Import Control Policy - as actual users. The product was classified by the Customs Authority under Chapter 29 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as it stood at the material time. A sample was drawn from the goods for test in the Customs laboratory. The product was reported to be a solution of the aromatic chemical 1,3,4,6,7, 8 Hexahydro 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8 hexamethyl cyclopentagamma-2-Benzo Pyran in Diethyl Phthalate. The Customs authorities were of the view that the product was more appropriately classifiable under Chapter 33 of the Schedule and was also covered by Entry No. 57, Appendix 2 of Part B of A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so because extensive arguments have been advanced before us and it would be expedient in the interest of justice to give our finding on the issue of classification. 6. The results of test on a sample of the product in the Customs laboratory read as follows :- "The sample is composed of an Aromatic chemical in organic solvent. In this connection, attention is invited to T.O. No. 1364/17-2-1987 (B/E No. 369/193)." (p. 21 of the appellants' paper book) It is thus clear that the product in question is a single aromatic chemical in an organic solvent. 7. It is one of the grievances of the appellants that the T.O (technical opinion) referred to in the Customs laboratory test report was regarding a different Bill of Entry (not of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not render the product particularly suitable for specific use rather than for general use." Shri Nankani's contention is that the product is admittedly an aromatic chemical, i.e. a separate chemically defined organic compound dissolved in an organic solvent. The solution constitutes a normal and necessary method of putting up the product adopted for reasons of transport. The solvent does not render the product particularly suitable for specific use rather than for general use. The appellants are manufacturing perfumery compounds using the imported product and these compounds, though used as perfumery, find applications in different fields such as soaps, cosmetics, detergents etc. He draws our attention also to the technical literature (p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acked due to the long residence time involved. In fact, practically speaking, it is virtually impossible to remove the total contents without the aid of a solvent wash. The letter goes on to discuss other complications if the product is marketed without fluidizing, e.g., it is stated that owing to layering effects it would be difficult to take out the product in a constant composition at a later stage. The letter concludes by saying that fluidizing of the product with chemicals such as Diethyl Phthalate is a normal and necessary method of handling this product for transportation and general use. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants by reference to all the aforesaid documents is that the product is imported in solut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solvent. The evidence on record clearly shows that the product is commercially marketed in solution form because of the peculiar nature of the basic chemical and to facilitate its handling. Handling could be for storage as well as in transport. The only thing remaining to be complied with in terms of Chapter Note 1 (e) is whether the solution does or does not render the product particularly suitable for specific use rather than for general use. What is specific and what is general has not been defined. The technical literature shows that the imported product has wide application in perfumery. The literature shows that it can be used in the creation of fragrances at all price levels from the inexpensive to the luxury extraits and has wide ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt's case is based on the premise that the product imported is a mixture (including alcoholic solutions) with a basis of one or more of odoriferous substances of a kind used as raw material in industry. On the other hand, Shri Nankani's contention is that the active chemical is odoriferous but the solvent is not. This contention finds support from the extract from the Book "Perfume and Flavor Chemicals" by Steffen Arctander (I) (1969 Edition) (p.20 of the Paper Book) which says that Diethyl Phthalate the solvent in the present case, is virtually odorless. Evidently, the imported product is not a mixture of odoriferous substances. (Incidentally, the Asstt. Collector has found that the product is not a mixture of odoriferous substancess.) ....