2024 (2) TMI 1030 - AT - Customs

Classification of Betine Hydrochloride (Betine HCL) - CBIC Instruction vide F. No. 401/92/2022-Cus-III - Commissioner (Appeals) held that the product rightly falls under CETH 230990 and has set aside the confirmed demands under the Order-in-Original - HELD THAT - It is seen that Betine HCL 93-98% are classifiable under Animal Feed Grade only. As observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the product literature provided by the Appellant very clearly shows that these all are part of Animal Feed and not fit for Human consumption for preparation of medicines. Again as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) no tests have taken up before the classification is changed arbitrarily. Therefore, we dismiss the Appeals filed by the Revenue and allow the Appeals filed by the Appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported product - Betine Hydrochloride under CETH 230990 or 29239000.

Summary:
In a series of Appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata, the issue revolved around the classification of Betine Hydrochloride imported by the appellant and the stand taken by the Revenue. The appellant argued for classification under CETH 230990, while the Revenue contended it should fall under 29239000. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled differently in various cases, leading to appeals from both the importer and the Revenue.

The Appeals filed by the importer challenged OIA Nos. 36-39/2021, while those by the Revenue were against OIA Nos. 580-584/2019 and others. The Tribunal considered the CBIC's clarification that Betine HCL 93-98% are classifiable under Animal Feed Grade only.

The Commissioner (Appeals) in OIA Nos. 580-584/2019 made findings supporting the classification under CETH 230990. It was noted that the goods were registered as feed additives for animal nutrition, labeled as such, and not intended for human or medical use. The department's failure to conduct chemical testing and reliance on brand names for classification were criticized. The literature indicated the goods were unsuitable for human use and suitable for animal feed, thus ruling out classification under heading 2936 and confirming classification under 2309.

After thorough analysis and considering statutory provisions, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification under CETH 230990. The lack of samples drawn by the Department to support their argument, coupled with the clear indication in the product literature that it was for animal feed and not human consumption, led to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals and the allowance of the importer's appeals with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the classification of Betine Hydrochloride as per the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of proper testing and consideration of product literature in determining classification.