Common parlance test for papad classification confirms fryums fall under the residuary food-preparation heading.

Un-fried fryums of different shapes and sizes were held not to be "papad" in common parlance because the term is undefined in the tariff and GST notifications and must be understood as commercially used. The AAR distinguished precedents concerning papad from cases involving fryums, and treated Heading 1905 as a specific entry for papad, while Heading 2106 operated as the residuary heading for food preparations not elsewhere specified or included. On that basis, the product was classified under tariff item 2106 90 99 and not under tariff item 1905 90 40, with GST payable at the applicable rate.

---

---

Issues: Whether different shapes and sizes of un-fried fryums manufactured and supplied by the applicant are classifiable as papad under tariff item 1905 90 40, or whether they fall under tariff item 2106 90 99 as food preparations not elsewhere specified or included.

Analysis: The expression "papad" is not defined in the tariff or the GST notifications, so its meaning had to be gathered from common parlance. The product manufactured by the applicant was found to be commercially understood as fryums and not as papad. The reasoning distinguished authorities dealing with papad of different shapes and sizes from cases concerning fryums, and held that those decisions did not assist the applicant. The tariff heading 1905 was treated as a specific entry for papad, while Heading 2106 was treated as the appropriate residuary and omnibus heading for edible preparations not elsewhere specified or included. On that basis, the product was held not to answer the description of papad and to fall within Heading 2106.

Conclusion: The product is classifiable under tariff item 2106 90 99 and not under tariff item 1905 90 40, and GST at 18% applies under the relevant rate notification.

---