CESTAT Chennai: Vitamin Feed Premixes Classifiable as Animal Feed Preparations Under CTH 2309

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 25.09.2026

CESTAT Chennai: Vitamin Feed Premixes Classifiable as Animal Feed Preparations Under CTH 2309

In a significant ruling concerning the customs classification of feed-grade vitamins and animal nutrition preparations, the CESTAT Chennai has set aside a Customs order seeking to classify imported Vitamin E 50% Feed Grade, Vitamin B2 80% Feed Grade and Vitamin C 35% Feed Grade under CTH 2936 instead of CTH 2309.

The Tribunal held that, in the absence of a chemical examiner’s report establishing that the imported products were pure chemicals or separate chemically defined organic compounds falling under Chapter 29, the Department had failed to discharge the burden necessary to sustain its proposed classification. Consequently, the benefit of classification was required to go to the importer, Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd.

The Classification Dispute: CTH 2309 vs CTH 2936

Provimi imported goods described as:

• Vitamin E 50% Feed Grade
• Vitamin B2 80% Feed Grade
• Vitamin C 35% Feed Grade
• The importer classified these products under CTH 2309, covering “preparations of a kind used in animal feeding.”
• Customs disagreed. The Department considered CTH 2309 to be general in nature and took the view that CTH 2936, covering provitamins, vitamins and their derivatives, was the more specific heading under Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI).
• According to Revenue, CTH 2309 applies to products presented in a form suitable for use as animal food supplements, whereas the imported vitamins were essentially inputs or raw materials requiring further processing before being incorporated into aquatic, poultry or cattle feed.
• The Department therefore proposed classification under CTH 2936, attracting 7.5% Basic Customs Duty under Sl. No. 185 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs and 18% IGST under Sl. No. 40 of Schedule III of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST.

Customs Raises ₹58.83 Lakh Differential Duty Demand

• A Show Cause Notice dated 8 March 2024 proposed rejection of Provimi’s classification, reclassification under CTH 2936, denial of the relevant notification benefits and recovery of ₹58,83,019 as short-levied duty, along with confiscation and penalties.
• The Commissioner of Customs (Audit), Chennai subsequently confirmed the proposals through Order-in-Original No. 108625/2024 dated 16 August 2024, leading Provimi to approach CESTAT.

Provimi: Products Are Specifically Formulated for Animal Feed

• Provimi argued that the imported goods were essentially animal-feed preparations and appropriately fell under Chapter Heading 2309.
• The company relied upon the WCO’s HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 23.09, particularly the category covering preparations used in making complete feeds or supplementary feeds.
• It also argued that the goods were designed exclusively for animal use, contained specifically tailored additives, were labelled accordingly and were supplied only to businesses engaged in animal feed and animal husbandry.
• The importer further contended that Chapter 29 primarily covers separate chemically defined compounds, whereas its imported products were not pure vitamins and contained additives intended to make them suitable specifically for animal nutrition.

Department: High-Concentration Vitamins Are Raw Materials, Not Animal Feed

• Revenue countered that the imported products contained vitamins in concentrations ranging from 35% to 80% and could not themselves be directly consumed by animals.
• The Department argued that they were merely inputs/raw materials for manufacturing animal feed, rather than animal feed or feed supplements themselves.
• It relied particularly on Commissioner of Customs CGO v. Sonam International Shop No. 9, 2020 (10) TMI 120 – Allahabad High Court, where the High Court considered high-concentration vitamins in the context of classification under Heading 2309.
• Revenue also referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors., AIR 2018 SC 3606 in support of its position concerning the interpretation of exemption/classification jurisprudence and earlier reliance on Sun Export Corporation.

CESTAT Applies Supreme Court’s 2026 Welkin Foods Ruling

• A major feature of the Tribunal’s analysis was the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Welkin Foods, 2026 INSC 19.
• CESTAT noted that Welkin Foods comprehensively examined customs classification principles, including the role of:
• GRI 1, tariff headings and statutory notes, HSN Explanatory Notes, the common/trade parlance test, and the relevance of end use.
• The Supreme Court had emphasised that GRI 1 is the fundamental starting point for customs classification. Classification must first be determined according to the terms of the headings and the relevant Section and Chapter Notes.
• Only where goods cannot be classified through GRI 1 and the applicable legal notes should the subsequent rules be considered sequentially.

Common Parlance Test Cannot Override Technical Tariff Provisions

• Provimi had argued that, in common and trade parlance, the products were understood as animal-feed supplements.
• CESTAT, applying Welkin Foods, held that the common or trade parlance test has to be applied restrictively in the modern HSN-based classification system.
• The Tribunal observed that the terminology employed in Chapters 23 and 29 is scientific and technical. Consequently, the tariff provisions must primarily be interpreted technically rather than simply according to the manner in which the goods are marketed or commercially described.
• It further observed that an importer relying on a trade-parlance meaning must produce satisfactory evidence supporting that meaning.

End Use, However, Was Relevant

• While limiting the common-parlance argument, CESTAT found that end use could legitimately be considered in the present classification dispute.
• Heading 2309 itself refers to preparations “of a kind used in animal feeding,” while Heading 2936 deals with vitamins and their derivatives used primarily as vitamins.
• The language of the competing headings therefore permitted consideration of use or adaptation as part of the classification exercise.

Chapter 23 Does Not Exclude Products Merely Because They Are of Chemical Origin

• Revenue also argued that Heading 2309 covered products obtained from the processing of vegetable or animal materials, whereas Provimi’s products were chemicals.
• CESTAT rejected a blanket exclusion on that basis.
• The Tribunal held that the relevant Chapter Note is inclusive and does not exclude products of chemical origin if they otherwise satisfy the description compatible with Chapter 23.
• This finding is important because it prevents the mere chemical origin of a product from automatically determining classification under Chapter 29.

Crucial Evidentiary Gap: No Chemical Examiner’s Report

The decisive weakness in Revenue’s case was the absence of technical evidence.

CESTAT observed that it did not have the benefit of an expert chemical test report prepared at the time of import to establish whether the products were:

separate chemically defined organic compounds, capable of classification under Chapter 29; or

preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, falling under Chapter 23.

• The Certificates of Analysis submitted by Provimi also did not contain the considered opinion of a technical expert capable of conclusively resolving this question.
• Provimi maintained that the imported vitamins were not pure vitamins but were formulated with various additives specifically for animal-feed applications, altering their suitability and making them intended for animal nutrition.

HSN Notes Recognise Premixes Under Heading 2309

CESTAT then examined the HSN Explanatory Notes because it found the HSN and Customs Tariff entries under Chapter 23 to be sufficiently aligned.

The HSN Notes divide the relevant Heading 23.09 preparations into three broad categories:

HSN category	Description
A	Complete feed
B	Preparations supplementing/balancing farm-produced feeds
C	Preparations used in making complete or supplementary feeds

• The Tribunal observed that the disputed goods were not complete feed or feed supplements falling within categories A or B. However, category C specifically concerns “preparations” used in making such feeds, commonly known in trade as premixes.
• This was significant because a product need not necessarily be directly fed to an animal in order to fall within the broader scope of Heading 2309.

Government Circular Identified Products as “Vitamin Premixes (Feed Grade)”

• Provimi also relied upon a circular dated 21 December 2022 issued by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
• The Tribunal recorded that the very products involved in the dispute—Vitamin E 50% Feed Grade, Vitamin B2 80% Feed Grade and Vitamin C 35% Monophosphate Feed Grade—were expressly mentioned as “Vitamin Premixes (Feed Grade)” in that document.

CESTAT Also Examines Meaning of “Premix”

• The Tribunal referred to the Customs Advance Ruling in In Re: BASF India Ltd., (2024) 24 Centax 401 (A.A.R.-Cus.-Mum.).
• That ruling discussed premixes as complex mixtures of vitamins, minerals, trace elements and other feed additives incorporated into compound feed, and explained that such premixtures are not themselves intended for direct feeding to animals.
• This was relevant to Revenue’s argument that the products could not fall under Heading 2309 merely because they were not capable of being directly consumed by animals.

Burden to Establish Reclassification Lies on Customs

• CESTAT ultimately treated the burden of proof as decisive.
• Referring to Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) and HPL Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 2006 (197) E.L.T. 324 (S.C.), the Tribunal reiterated that when Revenue seeks a particular classification, it must establish that the goods are taxable under the classification proposed by it.
• Because there was no Chemical Examiner’s certificate establishing whether the goods were pure chemicals, mixture concentrates or premixes, Revenue had failed to discharge that burden.
• CESTAT therefore held that the benefit of classification must go to the appellant.

B.V. Bio Corp Decision Supports Classification Under CTH 23099090

• The Tribunal also relied on its coordinate-bench ruling in B.V. Bio Corp Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), 2024 (4) TMI 1173 – CESTAT Mumbai.
• That case concerned imported products containing vitamins and provitamins in concentrations ranging from 2.7% to 100%.
• The Mumbai Bench had concluded that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 23099090 and that classification under Heading 2936 was not legally sustainable.
• The judgment further records that the B.V. Bio Corp position was affirmed, with the goods being treated as animal-feed preparations appropriately classified under Tariff Item 23099090, having regard to Circular No. 188/22/96-CX dated 26 March 1996.

Duty, Interest, Confiscation and Penalty Fall with Classification Demand

• Once Revenue failed to sustain the proposed classification under CTH 2936, CESTAT held that the consequential duty demand, interest, fine and penalty could not survive.
• Provimi had separately challenged confiscation and penalty under Sections 111, 125 and 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing inter alia that a bona fide classification claim did not amount to misdeclaration.

Final Decision: Provimi’s Appeal Allowed

• CESTAT set aside the impugned Order-in-Original and allowed Provimi’s appeal to the limited extent decided in the classification proceedings, with consequential relief as available under law.
• The Tribunal, however, made an important qualification regarding Provimi’s separate refund claim. Issues such as refund that were not part of the original proceedings were not adjudicated in this appeal and would have to be pursued separately in accordance with law.
• Thus, while Provimi succeeded in overturning the Department’s reclassification and consequential demand, the order should not be read as having independently sanctioned the refund claimed by the company.

Key Takeaway

The ruling reinforces an important principle in customs classification disputes: Customs cannot sustain reclassification merely by asserting that an alternative tariff heading is more specific. When the proposed classification depends upon the chemical composition and technical character of imported goods, Revenue must produce adequate technical evidence to discharge its burden of proof.

For feed-grade vitamins and premixes, the decision also recognises that Heading 2309 is not confined to products directly consumed by animals.

Preparations used in making complete or supplementary feeds can fall within its scope, subject to their objective characteristics, composition, HSN guidance and supporting technical evidence.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Chennai: Customs Cannot Reclassify 226 Auto Parts Without Product-Wise Evidence

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: CESTAT Chennai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi