Essential character test places composite printing blankets under rubber heading, not textile or machinery-part classification.

Composite imported blankets used in textile printing machinery were classified by essential character under Rule 3(b) of the Customs Tariff Rules. The goods were made of rubber and textile fabric, but the rubber component provided the resiliency, cushioning and printing function, while the textile layers served only as reinforcement; they were therefore treated as articles of rubber. The claimed textile heading was rejected because the goods were not primarily textile in nature, and the machinery-parts classification also failed because Note 1(a) to Section XVI excludes articles of unhardened vulcanized rubber used on machinery. The alternative reliance on Chapter 40 notes was likewise rejected, and the rubber heading applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported rubber and textile composite blankets used in textile printing machinery were classifiable as textile articles or machinery parts, or whether they were properly assessable as articles of rubber under Heading 40.05/16(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The goods were found to be composite articles made of rubber and textile fabric. The catalogue and supplier's letter showed that the rubber component gave the goods their resiliency, cushioning and printing function, and the textile layers were used as reinforcement. On that basis, the essential character of the goods was held to be derived from rubber. Rule 3(b) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff was applied to classify the goods according to their essential character. The claimed textile heading was rejected because the goods were not shown to be primarily textile in nature. The claim under Heading 84.40 also failed because machinery parts can be excluded from Section XVI by specific notes, and Note 1(a) to Section XVI expressly excludes articles of unhardened vulcanized rubber used on machinery. The alternative reliance on Note 2(e) to Chapter 40 and the proviso below Note 2(f) to Chapter 40 was rejected because the goods were neither bonded fibre fabrics of the kind covered by Note 2(e) nor expanded, foam or sponge rubber articles covered by the proviso.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable as articles of unhardened vulcanized rubber under Heading 40.05/16(1) and not as textile articles or machinery parts; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a composite imported article derives its essential character from rubber and falls within a specific exclusion for unhardened vulcanized rubber used on machinery, it is to be classified under the rubber heading notwithstanding its use as a machine part.

---