Bonded fabric classification depends on the interpretative circular and General Rules for Interpretation, not a predominance test.

Bonded fabric was held classifiable under the heading declared by the assessee because the goods were not general textile goods and the Revenue's section note was inapplicable on the facts. The interpretative circular for bonded fabrics was applied by reference to the type of textile material and the nature of bonding, and the first appellate authority's use of the General Rules for Interpretation, including Rule 3(c), was upheld. The Revenue's predominance test and reliance on the cited Delhi decision were found misplaced on the facts, so the declared classification was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported bonded fabric was classifiable under the heading declared by the assessee or under the heading proposed by the Revenue.

Analysis: The imported goods were bonded fabric and not general textile goods. The Section Note relied on by the Revenue was held to apply to textiles and textile articles in general and, on the facts, was found inapplicable to the imported fabric. The circular governing bonded fabrics was read as requiring classification to depend on the type of textile material and the nature of bonding. The first appellate authority's approach of applying the General Rules for Interpretation, particularly Rule 3(c), was upheld, and the Revenue's reliance on the predominance test and the cited Delhi decision was found misplaced on the facts.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under the heading declared by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where bonded fabric is specifically covered by an interpretative circular and the general section note on mixed textile materials is inapplicable on the facts, classification must be determined under the General Rules for Interpretation, including Rule 3(c), rather than by applying the predominance test.

---