Tariff classification of polypropylene leno bags depends on tariff notes, not BIS standards or prior practice.

Polypropylene leno bags woven from polypropylene strips were classified under Heading 392390 rather than Heading 6305 because tariff classification turned on the wording of the entries, section notes and chapter notes; the goods remained plastic articles, not textile articles. Prior classification practice, BIS standards, technical textile registration and estoppel could not override the tariff scheme or justify Chapter 63 classification. The advance ruling was modified accordingly, and the goods were held to fall under Heading 392390.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether polypropylene leno bags made from woven polypropylene strips are classifiable under Tariff Heading 3923 or Tariff Heading 6305 under the GST tariff read with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. (ii) Whether prior classification practice, BIS standards, technical textile registration, or estoppel could support classification under Chapter 63.

Issue (i): Whether polypropylene leno bags made from woven polypropylene strips are classifiable under Tariff Heading 3923 or Tariff Heading 6305 under the GST tariff read with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The applicable tariff structure distinguished sacks and bags of man-made textile materials under Heading 6305 from sacks and bags of plastics under Heading 3923. On the facts, the goods were made from polypropylene and related plastic raw materials, converted into strips and then woven into bags. The governing section and chapter notes were read as excluding such plastic-derived articles from Chapter 63 where they were not manufactured from textile material but remained plastic articles. The classification notice issued by the Central tax administration also treated polypropylene woven and non-woven bags as plastic bags under Heading 3923.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Heading 392390, not under Heading 6305.

Issue (ii): Whether prior classification practice, BIS standards, technical textile registration, or estoppel could support classification under Chapter 63.

Analysis: The classification was held to depend on the tariff entries, section notes, and chapter notes, not on BIS standards or the unit's registration description. The earlier manner of classification could not override the correct tariff position, and the plea of estoppel or election was rejected in the context of determining the proper tariff entry. The administrative and expert materials relied upon by the respondent were found insufficient to displace the tariff-based classification.

Conclusion: The plea for classification under Chapter 63 was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the advance ruling was modified by holding the goods classifiable under Heading 392390, thereby restoring the revenue position on classification.

Ratio Decidendi: Tariff classification must be determined from the wording of the tariff entries, section notes, and chapter notes, and where goods are made from plastic-derived strips woven into bags, they are classifiable as plastic articles rather than textile articles notwithstanding prior classification practice or ancillary materials such as BIS standards.

---