'Dry Tomato Flavour' Falls under CTH 3302 Covers both Natural and/or Synthetic Mixtures of Odoriferous Substances: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 'Dry Tomato Flavour' falls under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 3302 and covers both natural and/or Synthetic Mixtures of Odoriferous Substances.

M/s. Symrise Private Limited, the assessee challenged the order in Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the assessee.

The appellant had imported ‘tomato dry flavour’ under the cover of Bills-of-Entry by classifying the same under CTH 3302 1010 and thereby sought to avail the benefit of exemption of concessional rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 10% under Customs Notification No. 21/2002, Sl. No.119. The IAD-CRA objected to the classification, but the appellant protested the same by filing its objections. 

The adjudicating authority finalized the adjudication by classifying the imported ‘tomato dry flavour’ under Tariff Item 2106 9060 and thereby confirmed the demand issued to the importer under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequential differential duty with interest, as applicable under Section 28AA, was also demanded by the adjudicating authority.

The appellant had seriously agitated the re-classification and for reducing the demand of differential duty and, inter alia, pleaded that the classification proposed by the Revenue and confirmed thereafter covered only the food preparations which are not elsewhere specified or included and it is also a residuary heading with no specific heading as such.

It was also pleaded by them that the HSN note under heading 2106 specified the ‘preparations for use directly or after processing, such as cooking, dissolving, or boiling in water, milk, etc., for human consumption’.

Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Shri S. Balakumar, Assistant Commissioner, argued for the Revenue. 

The imported product is said to be a mixture of odoriferous substances. The product imported, as submitted by the appellant, is not a naturally extracted product from tomato, but an in-house blend made by  M/s. Symrise, Singapore uses various aroma chemicals, essential oils/extracts, etc., to be used in flavours which need a tomato taste in them.

A two-member bench comprising of Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) found that “the imported product is not meant to be directly used for human consumption. It is said to be for industrial use, for making food flavours and to impart a tomato profile. The products that are classifiable under Chapter Heading 2106 mostly consist of food and edible preparations which are meant to be used either directly or after processing such as cooking, dissolving or boiling in milk or water or other liquids, for human consumption. As per the HSN Notes, the said heading excludes a mixture of odoriferous substances, which can be either natural or synthetic or mixed or both, which are used as raw materials in the perfumery, food or drink industries.”

The appellant has been arguing that the tomato flavour is of synthetic origin though it may contain some natural odoriferous substances and it cannot be directly or indirectly used in food preparations. In this regard, the appellant has also put forth that it is not necessary that it should be made of essential oil, resinoid or oleoresin alone to merit classification under Chapter Heading 3302 and that in any case, the product contains garlic oil, which is an oleoresin.

 The CESTAT held that “the item imported is correctly classifiable under CTH 3302 1010 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. So, the impugned order is set aside.”

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates