Predominant character test governs classification of mixed waste, so wool-dominant consignment was treated as wool waste.

A heterogeneous waste consignment was held classifiable according to its dominant constituent, because the samples showed mixed fibres with wool predominating. The Tribunal applied the principle that tariff treatment of mixed waste depends on the predominant character of the goods as imported, not on the presence of a synthetic component in part of the consignment. On that basis, the goods were treated as wool waste rather than synthetic acrylic waste, and the confiscation, enhanced duty demand and penalty founded on misdeclaration were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported consignment, being a heterogeneous waste mixture with wool predominating, was classifiable as wool waste rather than synthetic acrylic waste, and whether the confiscation, duty demand and penalty based on misdeclaration were sustainable.

Analysis: The samples showed that the consignment was a waste product consisting of mixed fibres. The decisive factor was the predominance of wool content in the consignment as a whole. Since the goods were heterogeneous waste and wool predominated, the earlier Tribunal view on similar waste material was applied to hold that classification must follow the dominant wool content rather than the synthetic component in part of the consignment.

Conclusion: The consignment was to be treated as wool waste. The confiscation, enhanced duty assessment and penalty based on treating the 36 bales as synthetic acrylic waste were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the import was classified according to the predominance of wool in the mixed waste material, resulting in deletion of the adverse customs consequences.

Ratio Decidendi: For heterogeneous waste consignments, classification depends on the predominant constituent of the goods as imported, and the dominant character of the mixture governs tariff treatment.

---