Exemption for precipitated silica turned on intended use, and the refund claim was held admissible.

Notification No. 23/55-CE was construed by its intended use rather than by a limitation to natural or unprocessed silica. Where the framers meant to restrict an exemption to minerals of natural origin, they did so expressly; no such restriction appeared in the silica entry. Precipitated silica, used as an extender, suspending agent, filler or diluent, was therefore not excluded merely because it was obtained by precipitation that improved purity without changing its essential character. The goods were covered by the exemption, and the refund of additional duty was admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether precipitated silica used as extender, suspending agent, filler or diluent fell within the exemption granted by Notification No. 23/55-CE, and whether refund of additional duty was admissible.

Analysis: The notification qualified silica by its intended use and did not require that the silica be only natural or unprocessed. The scheme of the notification showed that where the framers intended to confine an entry to minerals of natural origin, they said so expressly. Since no such restriction was attached to the silica entry, precipitated silica could not be excluded merely because it was obtained by a process of precipitation that improved purity without changing the essential character of silica.

Conclusion: The goods were covered by the exemption notification and the refund claim was admissible.

---