The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata has set aside orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, and allowed ITC Ltd.’s appeals concerning the classification of imported quicklime.
The bench comprising Judicial Member Ashok Jindal and Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava noted that identical issues had been addressed in earlier tribunal rulings, including JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin and Viraj Profiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai. In those cases, the tribunal held that quicklime with less than 98% purity is classifiable under CTH 2522 10 00, not under the residuary entry 2825 90 90.
The dispute arose when ITC Ltd. imported consignments of PCC Lime 0/20MM (Quicklime) and declared them under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 2522 10 00 (Quicklime). However, the assessing officer reclassified the goods under 2825 90 90 (Other Inorganic Chemicals) on the basis of lab reports and issued assessment orders under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962. These were later confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Challenging the reclassification, ITC argued that the imported quicklime contained 92% calcium oxide, well below the 98% purity threshold required for classification under Chapter 28 (CTH 2825). The company maintained that its imports fell squarely under Chapter 25, which covers mineral products including quicklime.
Quoting the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) explanatory notes, the tribunal observed, “Quicklime (an impure calcium oxide) is obtained by calcining limestone… This heading excludes purified calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide under heading 2825. Since ITC’s imports contained only 92% CaO, the goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 2522 10 00.”
The tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allowed ITC’s appeals with consequential relief.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s ITC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
Case No.: Customs Appeal No.75617 of 2023
Date: 28 AUGUST 2025
Counsel For Appellant: Agnibesh Sengupta & Shri Indranil Banerjee
Counsel For Respondent: A.K.Choudhary, Authorized Representative
Read More: No Evidence of Gold Possession, Slashes Rs. 75 Lakh Penalty to Rs. 10 Lakh in Smuggling Case: CESTAT
