Tariff classification by common parlance upheld for Anardana as seed, not dried fruit, under the Customs Tariff.

Classification of goods under the Customs Tariff turns on common parlance and trade parlance understanding, read with the relevant tariff entries and explanatory notes. On that approach, Anardana was not shown by evidence to be understood in trade as dried fruit, while the EXIM code reference under Chapter 12 and its capability of germination supported treatment as seed rather than dry fruit. The explanatory notes to Heading 12.09 did not exclude it, so classification under Heading 08.13 was not accepted and sub-heading 12099990 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Anardana is classifiable as dried fruit under Heading 08.13 or as seeds for sowing under Heading 12.09 of the Customs Tariff.

Analysis: Classification of goods in taxing statutes is governed by the sense in which they are understood in common parlance and trade parlance. No evidence was produced to show that Anardana is understood as dried fruit in market usage. The reference to Anardana in the EXIM code under Chapter 12 supported its understanding as seed rather than dry fruit. The explanatory notes to Heading 12.09 did not exclude Anardana, and the material showed that it is capable of germination. The reliance on Heading 08.13 was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: Anardana was held correctly classifiable under sub-heading 12099990, and not under Heading 08.13.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish the claimed dry-fruit classification, and the assessee's classification was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive test is the common and trade parlance understanding of the goods, supported by the relevant tariff and explanatory notes.

---