The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s. Orange Pet Nutrition Private Limited challenging the Advance Ruling Order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling, Mumbai (CAAR). The Court upheld the classification of nutritionally balanced dog and cat feed imported in 20 kg bulk bags under CTH 2309 1000 as "Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale," attracting Basic Customs Duty at 20%. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the goods were not retail packs because they were repacked post-importation and lacked an MRP label.
Background & Facts
The Genesis of the Dispute
The appellant, M/s. Orange Pet Nutrition Private Limited, imports nutritionally balanced dry pet food in 20 kg bulk bags from overseas suppliers. The goods are fully formulated, ready-to-feed products intended for direct consumption by dogs and cats without further processing. After customs clearance, the appellant repacks the goods into smaller units (70 gms to 12 kg) for retail sale under its brand name 'Fidele+'. These retail packs contain consumer-facing information such as dosages, brand name, net weight, MRP, and other necessary details.
Key Facts
The appellant is registered as a "packer" under the Legal Metrology Regulations for undertaking repacking operations.
The imported goods are received in 20 kg bulk bags and repacked into smaller consumer packs post-importation.
The product labels on the 20 kg pack disclose detailed consumer-facing information such as composition, analytical constituents, feeding guidelines, instructions for use, batch number, expiry date, and the names and addresses of the manufacturer and importer.
The appellant sought an advance ruling on whether the imported products in bulk bags weighing 20 kg are classifiable under CTH 2309 90 10 as "Compounded animal feed" instead of CTH 2309 1000 as "Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale."
The jurisdictional customs commissionerate initially did not object to the classification of identical products under CTH 2309 90 90 in the case of Royal Canin India Pvt. Ltd. (Ruling No.CAAR/Mum/ARC/35/2024 dated 05.03.2024).
Procedural History
30.01.2025: Appellant filed an Advance Ruling Application before the CAAR seeking classification of imported pet food in 20 kg bulk bags.
28.03.2025: Respondent No.3 (jurisdictional customs commissionerate) submitted a reply contending that the goods are retail packs classifiable under CTH 2309 1000.
10.06.2025: Appellant filed a rejoinder rebutting the reply.
04.07.2025: CAAR passed the impugned order holding that the imported pet food in 20 kg bags is a retail pack classifiable under CTH 2309 1000, attracting Basic Customs Duty at 20%.
Present Appeal: Filed under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the CAAR's order.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant's Case
The appellant argued that:
The imported goods are not sold to the ultimate consumer "as imported" and are repacked into smaller packs prior to retail sale.
The expression "put up for retail sale" in CTH 2309 1000 requires the goods to be in a condition suitable for direct sale to the final consumer at the time of importation.
The absence of MRP and other retail declarations on the bulk package indicates that the goods are not retail packs.
The CAAR's interpretation in the case of Royal Canin (supra) on identical facts should be followed, where the CAAR held that pet food imported in bulk packs and repacked post-importation could not be regarded as goods "put up for retail sale."
The customs department cannot take contradictory positions on similar facts.
Respondent's Case
The revenue contended that:
The goods are fully formulated, ready-to-feed pet food bearing consumer-facing declarations such as nutritional composition, feeding instructions, expiry date, batch number, and manufacturer/importer details.
The 20 kg packs fall below the 25 kg exemption threshold under Rule 3(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and comply with Rule 6(1) labelling requirements.
The absence of MRP does not preclude the goods from being regarded as retail packs.
The goods are objectively suited for retail sale based on their packaging, completeness, and presentation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether nutritionally balanced dog and cat feed imported in 20 kg bulk bags, which are repacked into smaller units post-importation, can be classified as "Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale" under CTH 2309 1000, or whether they should be classified under CTH 2309 90 10 as "Compounded animal feed."
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant relied on:
The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector of Customs v. Sony India, (2008) 231 ELT 385 (S.C.), which held that imported goods are required to be classified in the condition in which they are presented for assessment at the time of importation.
The HSN Explanatory Notes, which state that "Retail Sale" does not include sale of goods intended to be re-sold after further repacking.
The Advance Ruling in Royal Canin India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 (390) ELT 530, where the CAAR held that pet food imported in bulk packs and repacked post-importation could not be regarded as goods "put up for retail sale."
The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which require retail labelling for packages not exceeding 25 kg.
The appellant argued that the goods are not retail packs at the time of importation because they lack MRP and are repacked post-importation.
For the Respondent
The revenue relied on:
The General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) and HSN Explanatory Notes, which require classification based on the objective characteristics and presentation of goods at the time of import.
The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which prescribe that packages not exceeding 25 kg are presumed to be for retail sale unless otherwise proven.
The product labels on the 20 kg pack, which disclose detailed consumer-facing information such as composition, analytical constituents, feeding guidelines, instructions for use, batch number, expiry date, and the names and addresses of the manufacturer and importer.
The fact that the goods are fully formulated, ready-to-feed pet food intended for direct consumption by dogs and cats without further processing.
The revenue argued that the goods are objectively suited for retail sale based on their packaging, completeness, and presentation, and that the absence of MRP does not preclude them from being regarded as retail packs.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the classification of the imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) and HSN Explanatory Notes. The relevant tariff entries are:
"2309 - Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding" and"2309 1000 - Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale" (20% duty) vs."2309 90 10 - Compounded animal feed" (15% duty)
The Court held that classification under CTH 2309 1000 depends on whether the goods are "put up for retail sale," which requires an assessment of whether the goods are in a condition suitable for direct sale to the final consumer at the time of import. This assessment includes an analysis of packaging, labelling, presentation, and being practically feasible.
The Court rejected the appellant's argument that classification must be based solely on the physical form and condition of the goods at the time of importation, without consideration of their intended use. The Court held that where the tariff heading itself contains terms such as "put up for retail sale," an assessment of intended purpose and presentation is inherent in the classification process.
The Court noted that the product labels on the 20 kg pack disclose detailed consumer-facing information such as composition, analytical constituents, feeding guidelines, instructions for use, batch number, expiry date, and the names and addresses of the manufacturer and importer. These features clearly satisfy the criteria for classification under Subheading 2309 10, specifically that the goods are nutritionally complete, packaged for retail consumption, and carry essential consumer information.
The Court also held that the absence of MRP does not, by itself, preclude the goods from being regarded as retail packs. The Court relied on Rule 3(a) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which provides that retail labelling requirements do not apply to packages containing more than 25 kg. Since the subject goods are packed in 20 kg bags, they fall within the purview of these legal requirements and are mandated to comply with the declaration requirements under Rule 6(1) of the Rules.
The Court distinguished the appellant's reliance on the decision in Royal Canin (supra) on the ground that the bulk bags in that case did not have the requisite labelling and information on the package, and the CAAR came to the conclusion based on a concession made by the jurisdictional commissionerate. The Court also distinguished the decisions relied upon by the appellant in Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajasthan and M/s.Midas Fertchem Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, as these decisions were factually distinguishable.
The Court held that the goods are fully formulated, ready-to-feed pet food bearing consumer-facing declarations, and fall within the statutory scope of "put up for retail sale." The Court concluded that classification under 2309 90 10 would be both factually inaccurate and legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Advance Ruling Order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the CAAR. The Court held that the imported nutritionally balanced dog and cat feed in 20 kg bags is classifiable under CTH 2309 1000 as "Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale," attracting Basic Customs Duty at 20%. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal without costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Classification Depends on Objective Indicators
Classification under tariff headings containing terms such as "put up for retail sale" requires an assessment of packaging, labelling, presentation, and completeness at the time of importation.
The absence of MRP does not preclude goods from being regarded as retail packs if they bear other consumer-facing declarations such as composition, feeding instructions, expiry date, and manufacturer details.
Bulk Packaging Does Not Preclude Retail Classification
Packages not exceeding 25 kg are presumed to be for retail sale under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, unless otherwise proven.
The Court rejected the argument that repacking post-importation negates retail classification at the time of importation.
Consistency in Advance Rulings is Not Absolute
The Court distinguished the appellant's reliance on Royal Canin (supra) on the ground that the factual matrix was different, including the absence of requisite labelling on the bulk bags.
Advance rulings are binding only on the applicant and the jurisdictional customs authorities concerned, and do not create a precedent binding on the CAAR in subsequent cases.
Post-Import Use is Irrelevant for Classification
Classification is determined based on the goods in the condition as imported, including their packaging, labelling, and presentation.
The Court rejected the argument that post-import repacking or the intended use of the goods post-importation should determine classification.
