Tariff classification of mixed fabrics turns on over-50% predominance and aggregation of man-made fibres.

In tariff classification of mixed fabrics, the phrase "predominates in weight" was construed to mean more than 50% of the fabric by weight, not merely the largest single constituent. The classification also required man-made fibres to be assessed on their overall predominance: cellulosic and non-cellulosic man-made fibres were to be aggregated rather than treated separately where the statutory context focused on the fabric's dominant character. On that construction, a fabric containing 65% man-made fibres and 35% cotton fell within the man-made fabrics entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "predominates in weight" in the tariff items meant a fibre that is the largest single constituent or one that constitutes more than 50% of the fabric by weight; and (ii) whether, for classifying a fabric as "man-made fabric", cellulosic and non-cellulosic man-made fibres should be aggregated or treated separately.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "predominates in weight" in the tariff items meant a fibre that is the largest single constituent or one that constitutes more than 50% of the fabric by weight.

Analysis: The expression had to be understood in the context of textile classification. A fabric could not logically be treated as made of a particular fibre merely because that fibre was the single largest constituent if it formed only a small part of the total weight. The tariff also used more specific language in other items dealing with alloys, where predominance was expressly stated to be over each other metal, showing that where the legislature intended a "largest constituent" test it said so in clear terms. In the absence of such qualifying language, the proper meaning was that the fibre should constitute the bulk of the fabric.

Conclusion: The phrase "predominates in weight" meant that the fibre must comprise more than 50% of the weight of the fabric.

Issue (ii): Whether, for classifying a fabric as "man-made fabric", cellulosic and non-cellulosic man-made fibres should be aggregated or treated separately.

Analysis: The classification had to reflect the fabric as a whole and its understanding in trade and by consumers. If over half of the fabric consisted of man-made fibres, it would be anomalous to deny the character of a man-made fabric merely because the man-made component was split between cellulosic and non-cellulosic fibres. The word "or" in the tariff description was read in context as not creating a rigid disjunction, and the explanations, if read literally, would produce absurd results and push such fabrics into the residuary entry. The better construction was to aggregate both kinds of man-made fibres for deciding whether the fabric fell under the man-made fabrics entry.

Conclusion: Cellulosic and non-cellulosic man-made fibres had to be taken together for classification under the man-made fabrics entry.

Final Conclusion: The fabric contained 65% man-made fibres and 35% cotton, and was correctly classifiable under the man-made fabrics entry. The appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff classification of mixed fabrics, "predominates in weight" means more than 50% by weight, and the different kinds of man-made fibres may be aggregated where the statutory context shows that the classification turns on the overall predominance of man-made content.

---