Tariff classification of imported chemical upheld as rubber anti-oxidant based on recognised use and trade identity.

Classification of the imported product turned on its recognised character and use in trade, not on the importer's actual use of it in polyethylene manufacture. Technical literature, manufacturers' catalogues and the supplier's leaflet showed that the compound was known as a rubber anti-oxidant and a rubber processing chemical, and its possible use as a plastics stabilizer did not change that tariff identity. On that basis, the product was held correctly classifiable under Item 65 of the Central Excise Tariff as a rubber anti-oxidant, and the levy was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported product "Rutenol Recryst" was classifiable as a rubber processing chemical, namely an anti-oxidant, under Item 65 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The classification turned on the nature and recognised use of the product, not on the importer's actual use of it in the manufacture of polyethylene. The record showed that the chemical composition corresponded to a compound described in authoritative literature and manufacturers' catalogues as a rubber anti-oxidant. The materials placed before the authority, including technical publications and the supplier's leaflet, supported the view that the product was widely recognised and recommended for protection of rubber from oxidation. The fact that the same compound could also be useful as a stabilizer for plastics did not detract from its established identification as a rubber processing chemical in the tariff sense.

Conclusion: The product was correctly classifiable under Item 65 of the Central Excise Tariff as a rubber anti-oxidant, and the levy was upheld against the assessee.

---