Plastic film classification and exemption: distinct trade identity defeated sheet-based exemption, and the residuary entry could not apply.

Cellulose nitrate films were held not to qualify for exemption meant for cellulose acetate sheets because films and sheets had distinct trade and technical identities, so the notification could not be extended by analogy. A later exemption notification could not assist where it came into force after the importation. On classification, the residuary Item 87 was unavailable because Item 82(3)(b) specifically covered articles of plastics, including flexible or laminated forms, and was broad enough to include plastic films. The goods were therefore classified under Item 82(3)(b), with the claimed exemption and alternative reassessment under Item 87 both denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether cellulose nitrate films were classifiable with cellulose acetate sheets so as to obtain exemption under Notification No. 65-Cus. dated 30-4-73 and Notification No. 86/74 dated 27-11-74, and whether, in the alternative, the goods were liable to reassessment under Item 87 without countervailing duty or were correctly classifiable under Item 82(3)(b) of the tariff.

Analysis: The goods imported were cellulose nitrate films, while the exemption notifications applied to cellulose acetate sheets. The classification turned on whether films and sheets were commercially and technically the same. The material before the authority showed that films and sheets have separate identity in plastic technology and in trade nomenclature, so the exemption meant for sheets could not be extended to films. Notification No. 86/74 was also ineffective because it came into force after the importation in question. On the alternative plea, Item 87 was a residuary entry and could be used only when classification under another heading failed. Item 82(3)(b) specifically covered articles made of plastics, including other rectangular or profile shapes, whether laminated or not and whether rigid or flexible. The expression was wide enough to include plastic films, and the presence of words such as rigid, flexible, and laminated supported that breadth. Since the goods were properly classifiable under Item 82(3)(b), the claim for reassessment under Item 87 without countervailing duty also failed. The exemption under Notification No. 28-Cus. dated 1-3-74 was unavailable for the same reason.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under Item 82(3)(b) and were not entitled to exemption under the notifications relied upon; the assessee's revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification limited to sheets cannot be extended to films having a distinct trade and technical identity, and a residuary tariff entry cannot be invoked where the goods are specifically covered by a substantive classification entry.

---