Tariff classification of HDPE goods turns on plastic character, not strip width, and writ remedy remained available.

Writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite an alternative statutory remedy where the challenge is to a patently erroneous tariff classification order said to disregard binding decisions and rest on an incorrect interpretation of the tariff. On classification, HDPE tapes, HDPE fabrics and HDPE woven sacks made from HDPE plastic granules were held to be plastic products under Chapter 39, because width alone does not determine classification under Heading 54.06 unless the goods are also synthetic textile material. The goods were directed to be classified under Heading 39.20/3920.32 and Heading 39.23/3923.90, not under Chapter 54.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy; (ii) Whether HDPE tapes, HDPE fabrics and HDPE woven sacks were correctly classifiable under Chapter 54 or Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The challenge was not to a mere discretionary or factual determination but to an alleged patently classification order said to ignore binding departmental and tribunal decisions. In such a situation, the availability of an appellate remedy did not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly where the impugned orders were asserted to be arbitrary and based on an erroneous interpretation of the tariff. The Court treated the matter as fit for decision on merits under Articles 226 and 227.

Conclusion: The objection based on alternative remedy was rejected and the petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether HDPE tapes, HDPE fabrics and HDPE woven sacks were correctly classifiable under Chapter 54 or Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The Court examined the manufacturing process, the tariff notes, the meaning of "synthetic textile material", the common parlance understanding of the goods, and the earlier tribunal decisions treating HDPE tapes and woven sacks as articles of plastic. It held that width alone could not determine classification under Heading 54.06 unless the strips were also synthetic textile material. Since the goods were made from HDPE plastic granules, were not shown to be textile material, and were understood in trade as plastic products, they fell under Chapter 39. The finished sacks, being made from such plastic strips, were also to be classified accordingly.

Conclusion: HDPE tapes fell under Heading 39.20, sub-heading 3920.32, and HDPE sacks fell under Heading 39.23, sub-heading 3923.90, and not under Heading 54.06.

Final Conclusion: The impugned classification orders were set aside and the goods were directed to be classified as plastic products under Chapter 39.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, width alone is not decisive where the heading additionally requires the goods to be synthetic textile material; goods manufactured from plastic granules and known in trade as plastic products cannot be brought under the textile heading merely because their strip width is within the prescribed limit.

---