2014 (12) TMI 1260 - AT - Customs

Classification of the product - Pediasure - classified under CTH 21.06 as food preparation not elsewhere specified or included or CTH 1901 as Preparations of Malt extract - Held that - the main ingredients in terms of weight are sugar 35.01%; carbohydrates 50.21% and the balance other ingredients and various proteins. Therefore there is merit in the contention of the appellant that product cannot fall under CTH 1901 at all and classification under CTH 2106 as not elsewhere specified or included appears to be merited. We further notice that in respect of the import of the same product subsequently, the department has classified the goods under CTH 21.06. Since this point has not been considered by the lower authorities, the matter should go back to original authority for fresh consideration. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration to consider the specific claim of the appellant that appropriate classification of the impugned goods is CTH 2106 - the appeal allowed by the way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Classification of the product "Pediasure" imported by the appellant under CTH 1901 as 'preparation for infant use' or under CTH 2106 as "food preparation not elsewhere specified or included."

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the classification of the product "Pediasure." The appellant initially claimed classification under CTH 1901 as a 'preparation for infant use.' However, during the appeal, the appellant withdrew this claim and sought re-classification under CTH 2106 as "food preparation not elsewhere specified or included."

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the composition of the product did not meet the requirements of CTH 1901, which specifically covers certain types of food preparations. The product contained 35.01% sugar, 50.21% carbohydrates, and various other ingredients, with no single material predominating. The appellant contended that this composition did not align with the description under CTH 1901. The counsel requested a remand for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority based on this new classification claim.

3. The Revenue's representative supported the findings of the lower authority regarding the classification of the product under CTH 1901.

4. Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal observed that the product's composition, with sugar and carbohydrates as the main ingredients, did not fit the classification under CTH 1901. The Tribunal noted that the department had classified the same product under CTH 21.06 in a subsequent import. As this aspect was not previously addressed by the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a review of the appellant's claim that the appropriate classification for the product was under CTH 2106.

5. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration was based on the product's composition and the need to reassess the classification under CTH 2106 in light of the arguments presented during the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a fresh classification review, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects involved in the case.