Tariff classification of polyvinyl pyrrolidone turns on essential character, not pharmaceutical end-use, and remains a synthetic resin.

Pharmaceutical grade polyvinyl pyrrolidone was treated as a synthetic resin for tariff purposes because it was a synthetic polymer within the polyvinyl resin class, and its water-soluble, pharmaceutical use did not alter its essential character. The court held that end-use was irrelevant where the tariff entry did not refer to use. It also rejected classification as a drug, because the tariff meaning of "drug" was not controlled by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the material was physiologically inert, serving only as a tablet binding agent. As it fell within Tariff Item 82(3), the residuary entry was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pharmaceutical grade polyvinyl pyrrolidone was classifiable as a synthetic resin under Tariff Item 82(3) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934; (ii) whether the same goods could be treated as a drug under Tariff Item 28, or failing that, under the residuary Tariff Item 87.

Issue (i): Whether pharmaceutical grade polyvinyl pyrrolidone was classifiable as a synthetic resin under Tariff Item 82(3) of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934.

Analysis: The material was found to be a synthetic polymer and the scientific literature placed polyvinyl pyrrolidone within the broader class of polyvinyl resins. The reasoning emphasised that water-solubility did not exclude resin character, and that technical literature and prior tariff treatment supported classification as a synthetic resin. The end-use of the imported material in pharmaceutical preparations was held to be irrelevant to classification where the tariff entry did not refer to use.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable as a synthetic resin under Tariff Item 82(3), against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the same goods could be treated as a drug under Tariff Item 28, or failing that, under the residuary Tariff Item 87.

Analysis: The definition of drug in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was held not to control the meaning of the tariff entry. On common parlance, a drug was understood as a substance having physiological action on the human body, whereas the imported grade of polyvinyl pyrrolidone was physiologically inert and used only as a binding agent in tablets. Its use as a component of pharmaceutical preparations did not by itself make it a drug. Since it was already covered by Tariff Item 82(3), it could not be shifted to the residuary item.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable as a drug under Tariff Item 28 and were not eligible for the residuary Tariff Item 87, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging customs classification failed, and the impugned assessment under Tariff Item 82(3) was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the article must be judged by its nature and commercial understanding at the time of import, not by its end-use, and a physiologically inert ingredient does not become a drug merely because it is used in the manufacture of medicines.

---