Tariff classification turns on essential character: rubberised steel cord tyre belt fabric falls under the steel fabric heading, not rubber.

Imported brass plated high tensile steel cord rubberised and cut for tyre belt use was classified by reference to its nature and essential character as reinforcing fabric of iron or steel wire, not as a rubber article. The presence of rubber did not change the fact that the goods derived their structure, flexibility, rigidity and strengthening function from the steel fabric, so heading 73.27/28 applied more specifically than heading 40.05/16(1). A separate claim for refund of additional countervailing duty was not entertained at the appellate stage because it had not been raised before the lower authorities and its basis was not properly set out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported cut and calendered steel fabric was classifiable under heading 73.27/28 as reinforcing fabric of iron or steel wire, or under heading 40.05/16(1) as goods of rubber; (ii) whether the claim for refund of additional countervailing duty could be entertained at the appellate stage.

Issue (i): Whether the imported cut and calendered steel fabric was classifiable under heading 73.27/28 as reinforcing fabric of iron or steel wire, or under heading 40.05/16(1) as goods of rubber.

Analysis: The goods were found to be brass plated high tensile steel cord rubberised and cut for use as tyre belt material. Although rubber was present, the article had lost the essential rubber quality and derived its structure, flexibility, rigidity and strengthening function from the steel fabric. The goods were not merely rubber articles reinforced with textile fabric; rather, they were reinforcing steel fabric covered with rubber. On their nature, structure and essential character, they answered the description of reinforcing fabric of iron or steel wire more specifically than the rubber heading. The Tribunal also held that recourse to the general interpretative rules was unnecessary because the goods were not prima facie classifiable under more than one heading.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under heading 73.27/28 and not under heading 40.05/16(1), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for refund of additional countervailing duty could be entertained at the appellate stage.

Analysis: The refund claim had not been raised before the lower authorities, and the basis for the claim had not been properly set out in the proceedings before the Tribunal. In those circumstances, the new ground could not be permitted at that stage.

Conclusion: The refund claim for additional countervailing duty was not entertained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was directed to be revised in favour of the importer by classifying the goods under heading 73.27/28, while the separate refund plea was left unadmitted.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the goods must be placed under the heading that most specifically answers their nature and essential character; a product that is structurally and functionally a reinforcing steel fabric does not become a rubber article merely because it is rubberised or used in tyre manufacture.

---