Classification of organosilicon products as silicones in primary form rejected; duty demand and penalty failed.

Goods containing organosilicon compounds were not classifiable under Heading 39.10 unless they answered the tariff description of silicones in primary form as non-chemically defined goods under the HSN Explanatory Notes. Chemical reports showed mixed constituents, and the Chief Chemist's report, supported by factory inspection, stated that chemically defined organosilicon compounds predominated and the products were not silicones in primary form. The departmental classification was therefore unjustified, and the duty demand and penalty based on that classification could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods manufactured by the appellant were correctly classifiable under Heading 39.10 as silicones in primary form, and whether the duty demand and penalty based on that classification could be sustained.

Analysis: The classification under Heading 39.10 required not merely that the goods be liquids or contain silicone constituents, but that they answer the description of non-chemically defined silicones in primary form as understood in the tariff and the HSN Explanatory Notes. The chemical reports showed that the products were mixtures containing organosilicon and polyorganosilicon compounds, while the Chief Chemist's considered report after factory inspection stated that the chemically defined organosilicon compounds predominated and that the goods were not silicones in primary form. The earlier classification could not be sustained merely because the products were free from mineral oil or contained silicone components. In the absence of reasons for rejecting the expert report, and in light of the tariff description and explanatory notes, the departmental classification was not justified.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Heading 39.10 as silicones in primary form, and the duty demand and penalty based on that classification were unsustainable.

---