Popular and commercial meaning governs tariff classification; an internal communication device is not a telephone for exemption purposes.

For tariff classification, the controlling test was the popular and commercial understanding of the article, not a broad dictionary meaning. A device used only for internal communication and incapable of connection to the public exchange was treated as an intercom device rather than a telephone. On that basis, the product marketed as "Fonokom" did not fall within the exempted category under Tariff Item No. 33D, and exemption was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product marketed as "Fonokom" was a telephone entitled to exemption under Tariff Item No. 33D, or an intercom device liable to excise duty under the same tariff entry.

Analysis: The product was examined by reference to its user, construction and trade understanding. Although a telephone may sometimes be understood in a broad dictionary sense, the decisive test for tariff classification was its popular and commercial meaning. The product was meant only for internal communication within the same and could not be connected to the public exchange. That feature distinguished it from a telephone in the ordinary trade sense. On that basis, the Court treated it as an intercom device and not as a telephone falling within the exempted category.

Conclusion: The product was held to be an intercom device and not a telephone, so the exemption under Tariff Item No. 33D was unavailable; the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the controlling test is the popular and commercial understanding of the article, and a device meant only for internal communication without access to the public exchange is not a telephone merely because it may resemble one in some respects.

---