Amodiaquine hydrochloride exemption interpreted broadly to cover the administrable medicinal form under the notification.

Amodiaquine hydrochloride was treated as covered by the exemption for amodiaquine under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. because the Tribunal read the notification in its medicinal context and found it intended to exempt the administrable form used in practice. Although the hydrochloride form was not chemically identical to amodiaquine, the Tribunal noted that the base substance had no practical medical use except as the hydrochloride and relied on the later amendment substituting amodiaquine hydrochloride as confirmation of that intent. The exemption was therefore available and the appellant succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether amodiaquine hydrochloride was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E. as amodiaquine.

Analysis: The exemption notification used the expression amodiaquine, while the goods were marketed and administered in the hydrochloride form. The Tribunal accepted that amodiaquine hydrochloride was not chemically identical to amodiaquine, but found that the base substance was not used medically except in hydrochloride form and that the notification, read in context, was intended to exempt the administrable medicinal form. The subsequent governmental amendment replacing the reference to amodiaquine with amodiaquine hydrochloride was treated as confirming that the exemption was meant to cover the hydrochloride form.

Conclusion: Amodiaquine hydrochloride was held entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 116/69-C.E., and the appellant succeeded.

---