Same-class cigarettes principle: brand conversion did not change the goods' class, so Rule 173L(3) did not apply.

Cigarettes returned for re-processing and converted from one brand to another were treated as goods of the same class because Item 4-II(2) covered cigarettes as a single class regardless of brand, trade name, or description. On that basis, changing Viscount cigarettes into Cavender cigarettes did not create a different class of goods, and the condition for excluding the matter from Rule 173L(3) was not satisfied. Rule 173L(3) therefore did not apply, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether cigarettes returned for re-processing and converted from one brand to another remained goods of the same class so that Rule 173L applied.

Analysis: The duty entry under Item 4-II(2) covered cigarettes as a single class irrespective of brand, trade name, or description. Changing Viscount cigarettes into Cavender cigarettes did not alter the class of the goods. Since one brand of cigarette was not a separate class of goods from another, the condition for excluding the case from Rule 173L(3) was not made out.

Conclusion: Rule 173L(3) did not apply, and the revision application was allowed with consequential relief.

---