In re Inhalation Health Private Limited (CAAR Mumbai)
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, by Ruling No. CAAR/Mum/ARC/51/2026-27 dated 27.07.2026, decided an application filed by M/s. Inhalation Health Private Limited under Section 28-I(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking an advance ruling on the customs tariff classification of Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate proposed to be imported through JNCH, Nhava Sheva. The applicant stated that the product consists of Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate (>79%), Citric Acid (<11%), and Water (≤10%), and is a coordination compound represented by the chemical formula C4H8MgN2O4, comprising one magnesium ion coordinated with two molecules of glycine. It submitted that citric acid functions only as a stabilizer and that the product should be classified under CTH 2922 49 90 as “Other” amino acids and their salts, relying on Chapter Note 5(C)(3) and Chapter Note 1(d) and 1(f) of Chapter 29. The applicant further contended that the presence of water and citric acid does not affect classification under Chapter 29, and that the product should not be classified under residual Heading 2106 merely because it is intended for nutritional use. It also stated that the imported goods are a chemically defined organic compound and not a finished food supplement.
The jurisdictional Commissionerate was requested to furnish comments on the application but no reply was received. During the personal hearing, the applicant reiterated that the product is a chemically defined coordination compound in which the magnesium ion is bonded to the amino and carboxyl groups of glycine and therefore falls under Heading 2922 rather than Heading 2106. Additional submissions clarified that the imported goods are a single chemically defined coordination compound, that citric acid is used only as a stabilizer, that there are no other active ingredients, carriers or excipients, and that the goods are imported in bulk as a raw material rather than as a finished food supplement. The applicant also furnished the manufacturer’s process flow chart showing that magnesium oxide is reacted with glycine in an aqueous medium, followed by addition of citric acid as a stabilizer, spray drying, packaging and quality control.
The Authority examined the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR), relevant Section Notes, Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes. It observed that classification must first be determined according to the tariff headings and applicable notes. Examining Heading 2106, the Authority noted that it is a residual heading for food preparations not elsewhere specified or included. It found that the imported product is not a food preparation but a single chemically defined coordination compound manufactured from magnesium oxide and glycine, with citric acid acting only as a stabilizer and no additional active ingredients, carriers, excipients or flavouring agents. The Authority further observed that the goods are imported in bulk as a raw material for manufacture of nutritional supplements and not as finished food supplements or retail food preparations. It held that intended use as an ingredient in nutritional supplements does not determine tariff classification and therefore the product is not classifiable under Heading 2106.
The Authority then examined Heading 2922 relating to amino acids, their esters and salts, together with the relevant HSN Explanatory Notes and Chapter Note 5(C)(3) to Chapter 29 governing coordination compounds. It found that Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate is a chemically defined coordination compound whose organic ligand is glycine, an amino acid. Applying Chapter Note 5(C)(3), it held that such coordination compounds are classifiable under the heading appropriate to the organic ligand obtained by cleavage of the metal bond. It also held that the presence of citric acid as a stabilizer and water does not affect classification because Chapter Note 1(f) permits stabilizers necessary for preservation or transport and Chapter Note 1(d) permits products dissolved in water.
The Authority also considered Heading 2941 covering antibiotics and the corresponding HSN Explanatory Notes. It observed that antibiotics are chemically defined substances produced by or derived from microorganisms and used principally for antibacterial, antifungal or similar antimicrobial activity. It found that Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate is produced by reacting magnesium oxide with glycine, is not produced by microbial fermentation or derived from microorganisms, and there was nothing on record to indicate that it possesses antibiotic, antibacterial, antifungal or antimicrobial properties. Consequently, the exclusion in Chapter Note 5(C)(3) relating to products classifiable under Heading 2941 was held to be inapplicable, and the product was found not classifiable under Heading 2941.
The Authority further observed that the imported goods consist of Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate, citric acid and water, with the manufacturer certifying that the finished product contains no free magnesium salts, free glycine or other active ingredients, carriers or excipients. It reiterated that tariff classification is determined by the objective characteristics and composition of the goods at the time of importation and not by their intended end use. It noted that although the goods are imported for use in nutritional or dietary supplements, they remain chemically defined coordination compounds and are neither food preparations nor medicaments. The Authority also referred to a U.S. Customs ruling dated 16.05.2007 (NY N005814), observing that although it is not binding in India, it has persuasive value because the Indian Customs Tariff is based on the Harmonized System of Nomenclature and contains an identical provision under Chapter Note 5(C)(3).
On the basis of these findings, the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings ruled that Magnesium Bis-glycinate Chelate is classifiable under CTH 2922, specifically CTH 2922 49 90, as “Other Amino-acids, and their esters; salts thereof – Other” under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and issued the advance ruling accordingly.
Cases Discussed
- Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Company (SC), 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.)
- CCH v. Wood Craft Products Ltd. (SC), 1995 (77) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.)
