Levocarnitine Classifiable Under Tariff 2923 | CESTAT

Case Details: Symbio Generics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai-II (2026) 40 Centax 92 (Tri.-Mad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S/Shri P. Dinesha, Member (J) & M. Ajit Kumar, Member (T)
• S. Sankaravadivelu, Adv., for the Appellant.
• Smt. O.M. Reena, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The appellant imported products namely Levocarnitine and Levocarnitine L-Tartrate and claimed classification under Tariff Item 2923 90 00 of the Customs Tariff as quaternary ammonium salts and separate chemically defined organic compounds. The department, however, proposed classification under Tariff Item 2106 90 99 treating the goods as food preparations and proceeded to determine the classification accordingly. The appellant contended that the products were chemically defined organic compounds falling under Tariff Heading 2923 and relied upon scientific reports including reports of the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) as well as rulings of customs authorities in other jurisdictions. It was further submitted that classification under the Customs Tariff must be determined strictly in accordance with the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) and that the departmental view treating the goods as food preparations was not supported by the tariff provisions. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

CESTAT Held

The CESTAT held that Levocarnitine and Levocarnitine L-Tartrate are quaternary ammonium salts and separate chemically defined organic compounds. The tribunal observed that the CRCL reports supported the appellant’s claim regarding the nature of the products and that the adjudicating authority had ignored such scientific evidence. It further noted that the department relied on certain website references to treat the goods as food preparations while overlooking the tariff provisions and HSN principles governing classification. The tribunal held that the department had not established or justified its case for classification under Tariff Item 2106 90 99. Accordingly, the goods were held to be classifiable under Tariff Item 2923 90 00, as claimed by the appellant.

List of Cases Cited

• A. Nagaraju Bros. v. State of Andhra Pradesh — 1994 (72) E.L.T. 801 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6]
• Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector — 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 16]
• Assistant Commissioner v. — Camlin Ltd. — [2015] 55 taxmann.com 369 (Rajasthan) — Referred [Para 6]
• Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 633 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6]
• Collector v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. — 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 17]
• Commissioner v. Air India Ltd. — 2023 (386) E.L.T. 236 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Commissioner v. Finesse Creation Inc. — 2009 (248) E.L.T. 122 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Commissioner v. Finesse Creation Inc. — 2010 (255) E.L.T. A120 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Commissioner v. Sony India Ltd. — 2008 (231) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 16]
• Commissioner v. Vaidynath Ayurwed Bhawan Ltd. — 2009 (237) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6]
• Court No. 11-00093, dated 3-9-2015 by U.S. Court of International Trade — Referred [Para 5]
• Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2006 (197) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Heinz India Ltd. v. State of Kerala — 2023 (385) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) = (2023) 6 Centax 64 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2023 (383) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) = (2023) 2 Centax 236 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 9, 17]
• Holostick India Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• Human Health Distribution v. Commissioner — 2024 (390) E.L.T. 342 (Tri.-Del) = (2024) 19 Centax 156 (Tri. – Del.) — Referred [Para 6]
• Jai Kunkan Foods v. Commissioner — (2023) 7 Centax 199 (Tri.-Del) = 2023 (385) E.L.T. 738 (Tri.-Del) — Referred [Para 5]
• Mauri Yeast India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. — 2008 (225) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 15]
• New India Shipping Services v. Commissioner — 2016 (333) E.L.T. 170 (Tri.-Bang) — Referred [Para 5]
• New Prasanthi Automobiles Company v. State of Kerala — 1193 (91) STC 565 — Referred [Para 6]
• No. 11436, dated 1-6-2007 by U.S. Customs — Relied on [Paras 5, 12]
• NY8061, dated 11-1-2000 by U.S. Customs — Relied on [Paras 5, 12]
• NYE88640, dated 8-12-1999 by U.S. Customs — Relied on [Paras 5, 12]
• Thermax Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2022 (382) E.L.T. 442 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
• TRS No. 286007, dated 18-5-2021 by Canadian Custom Advance Ruling — Relied on [Paras 5, 13]
• U.M. Cables Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2022 (381) E.L.T. 98 (Tri.-Bom) — Referred [Para 5]
• United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector — 1988 (38) E.L.T. 568 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6]
• Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2024) 18 Centax 72 (Tri.-Mad) = 2024 (389) E.L.T. 194 (Tri.-Mad) — Relied on [Paras 5, 8]