Rubberised cotton fabric classification turns on cotton predominance; Friction Cloth fell under the rubber product tariff.

Rubberised cotton fabric known as Friction Cloth was held outside Tariff Item 19(1)(b) because cotton did not predominate by weight and the special 40% test in that item did not apply to a cotton fabric further rubberised on both sides. The product consisted of 47.1% cotton and 52.9% rubber compound, and the chemical composition, departmental instructions, and tariff advices supported treatment as a rubber product rather than a cotton fabric. The cited precedents were distinguished on their facts. The goods were therefore correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 16A(2) in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether rubberised cotton fabric known as Friction Cloth was classifiable under Tariff Item 19(1)(b) as cotton fabrics or under Tariff Item 16A(2) as a rubber product.

Analysis: The goods were made from cotton fabric that was rubberised on both sides, with the Chemical Examiner reporting 47.1% cotton and 52.9% rubber compound. Tariff Item 19 covered cotton fabrics only where cotton predominated in weight, or where the special 40% test applied to fabrics containing cotton with non-cellulosic fibres or yarn. That latter test did not fit the present product, since the base material was cotton fabric rubberised further and not a mixed fabric of the kind contemplated by the item. The departmental instructions and later tariff advices, read with the chemical composition, supported classification outside Tariff Item 19 when cotton did not predominate. The cited decisions on other products were found distinguishable on facts and on the nature of the controversy.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Tariff Item 19(1)(b) and were correctly classifiable under Tariff Item 16A(2), in favour of the assessee.

---