Manufacture test for slitting and cutting processes: dimensional change alone does not create a new commercially distinct product.

Manufacture arises only when a process brings into existence a new and distinct commercially identifiable commodity with a different name, character or use; mere reduction in width or dimensional alteration is insufficient. Applying that test, slitting and cutting hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel coils into narrower strips did not create a new product, and tariff classification alone did not prove manufacture. The same reasoning applied to cutting and slitting plastic laminating sheets and metallized polyester films into smaller widths, because the process only changed dimensions and did not establish a distinct commercial identity. Duty, penalty and allied demands based on alleged manufacture were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether slitting and cutting of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel coils into narrower strips amounts to manufacture. (ii) Whether cutting and slitting of plastic laminating sheets and metallized polyester films into smaller widths amounts to manufacture.

Issue (i): Whether slitting and cutting of hot-rolled and cold-rolled steel coils into narrower strips amounts to manufacture.

Analysis: Manufacture requires emergence of a new and different commodity having a distinct name, character or use. Mere change in size or dimensional alteration is not enough. The tariff classification of the resultant product is only one factor and does not by itself establish manufacture. In the absence of material showing that the slit steel products had acquired a commercially distinct identity in the market, or that the process had brought into existence a new commodity, the test of manufacture was not satisfied.

Conclusion: Slitting and cutting of steel coils into narrower strips did not amount to manufacture and the demand could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether cutting and slitting of plastic laminating sheets and metallized polyester films into smaller widths amounts to manufacture.

Analysis: The same test applies to plastic products. A process undertaken to make the material suitable for later use does not automatically amount to manufacture unless it results in a new commercial product with a distinct identity. Cutting the jumbo reels or sheets into narrower widths merely altered their dimensions and did not, by itself, prove the emergence of a new commodity. The reasoning applicable to steel products equally applied to the plastic products involved in the appeals.

Conclusion: Cutting and slitting of plastic laminating sheets and metallized polyester films did not amount to manufacture and the demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The duty, penalty and allied directions based on the premise of manufacture were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A process amounts to manufacture only when it brings into existence a new and distinct commercially identifiable commodity having a different name, character or use; mere reduction in width or size, without proof of such transformation, is not manufacture.

---