Predominant use test classifies rain-guard compound as an adhesive, not a plant protection chemical or waterproofing material

The product was classified by applying the common parlance and predominant use tests, with the decisive factor being its main commercial use rather than incidental water-resistant properties. Used on the scraped trunk of rubber trees to fix and secure rain-guard materials in place, it functioned primarily as a strong adhesive. On that basis, it was not treated as a plant protection chemical or as a waterproofing material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product polystik compound or rain guard compound is to be classified as an adhesive, a plant protection chemical, or a waterproofing material.

Analysis: The product was examined in the context of its actual use in rain-guarding rubber trees, the literature of the Rubber Board, the manner in which it is marketed, and the nature of the process in which it is applied. The coating is used on the scraped portion of the trunk to fix and hold the polythene and kora cloth rain guard in place, and the second coating serves to secure that arrangement. The Court applied the common parlance and predominant use principles and held that the decisive feature is the main commercial use of the product, not incidental properties such as water resistance. On that material, the product was found to function primarily as a strong adhesive and not as a plant protection chemical or waterproofing agent.

Conclusion: The product is classified as an adhesive and not as a plant protection chemical or a waterproof material.

---