The Bombay High Court has held that nutritionally complete dog and cat food imported in 20-kilogram bags qualifies as “dog or cat food, put up for retail sale” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2309 1000, rejecting the importer’s claim that the products should instead be classified as “compounded animal feed” under CTH 2309 9010.
The Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla dismissed the customs appeal affirming the ruling of the Customs Authority for Advance Ruling (CAAR) and held that the imports will continue to attract 20% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) instead of the lower 15% BCD applicable to compounded animal feed.
The dispute arose after Orange Pet Nutrition sought an advance ruling from the CAAR on whether its imported nutritionally balanced pet food, brought into India in 20-kg bulk bags, should be classified under CTH 2309 9010 (Compounded Animal Feed) instead of CTH 2309 1000 (Dog or Cat Food, Put Up for Retail Sale).
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The company argued that the imported goods were not sold directly to consumers in their imported form. According to the importer, after customs clearance the 20-kg bags were transported to its warehouse where they were repacked into smaller packets ranging from 70 grams to 12 kilograms under its “Fidele+” brand before being marketed to consumers. Since further repacking was an integral part of its business model, the importer contended that the imported bags themselves could not be regarded as retail packs.
The importer also relied on the HSN Explanatory Notes, arguing that products intended for further repacking do not qualify as goods “put up for retail sale.”
Orange Pet Nutrition contended that tariff classification should be determined solely on the condition of goods at the time of import, without considering subsequent marketing.
It argued that the imported 20-kg bags lacked Maximum Retail Price (MRP) declarations; the products were merely wholesale packages intended for repacking; the expression “put up for retail sale” should apply only where goods are imported in the same form in which they are ultimately sold to consumers; the Customs Authority had ignored an earlier Advance Ruling in Royal Canin, where bulk pet food imports had been classified under CTH 2309 9010.
The company further argued that Customs authorities had taken inconsistent positions by supporting a different classification in the Royal Canin matter.
The Customs Department maintained that the products were already fully formulated, ready-to-feed dog and cat foodand that the packaging itself contained all essential consumer-facing information.
According to the department, the goods satisfied the description of retail-ready pet food, irrespective of whether the importer subsequently chose to repackage them into smaller packs.
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the Customs Tariff, the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR), the HSN Explanatory Notes and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
The Court observed that tariff classification is based upon the objective characteristics, presentation and packaging of goods at the time of import.
It held that the phrase “put up for retail sale” does not merely depend upon package size or the presence of an MRP but requires examination of whether the imported goods are objectively suitable for direct sale to consumers.
A significant factor influencing the Court was the nature of the labels affixed to the imported 20-kg bags.
The Bench noted that the imported bags carried extensive consumer-oriented information including nutritional composition, analytical constituents, feeding guidelines, instructions for use, expiry date, batch number, manufacturer and importer details.
The Court held that these declarations demonstrated that the products were consumer-ready and not merely industrial or wholesale feed. It found that the products satisfied the characteristics of retail packs notwithstanding the absence of an MRP.
Rejecting the importer’s central argument, the Court held that the subsequent decision of an importer to repackage imported goods cannot by itself determine tariff classification.
The Bench observed that the products were already fully formulated, ready-to-feed pet food, requiring no further processing before consumption.
The Court clarified that classification was not based on post-import use, but rather on the objective characteristics of the goods as imported, including their packaging, labelling and suitability for retail sale.
According to the Court, the imported bags themselves were capable of being sold directly to consumers.
The Bench also relied upon the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
It observed that packages exceeding 25 kilograms are exempt from certain retail declaration requirements. Since the imported products were packed in 20-kg bags, they fell below this threshold and were therefore required to comply with retail labelling norms.
The Court rejected the contention that absence of an MRP automatically excluded retail classification, observing that the statutory framework does not make MRP the sole determinant of whether goods are “put up for retail sale.”
Orange Pet Nutrition had heavily relied upon the CAAR’s earlier ruling in Royal Canin, where pet food imported in bulk bags weighing between 15 kg and 700 kg had been classified differently.
However, the High Court distinguished that decision on facts.
It noted that the Royal Canin imports involved much larger bulk packages and lacked the detailed consumer declarations present in the present case. The Court also observed that the earlier ruling had proceeded on a concession made by the jurisdictional customs authorities, making it unsuitable as a precedent for the present dispute.
Finding no substantial question of law, the High Court upheld the CAAR’s advance ruling.
It held that the imported products are correctly classifiable under CTH 2309 1000 – “Dog or cat food, put up for retail sale”, attracting 20% Basic Customs Duty, and rejected classification under the residual entry CTH 2309 9010 meant for compounded animal feed.
Consequently, the customs appeal filed by Orange Pet Nutrition Private Limited was dismissed with no order as to costs.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
