Tariff classification of Hypalon-40 turned on trade identity and functional characteristics, placing it under synthetic rubber.

Hypalon-40 was held to be classifiable as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40, not synthetic resin under Chapter 39, because tariff classification depended on trade understanding and predominant functional characteristics. The commercial evidence showed the product was known and sold in trade as synthetic rubber, and the independent laboratory report supported that it could be vulcanized, became an elastic non-thermoplastic substance, and had the extensibility and recovery traits associated with Chapter 40. The departmental report did not establish that the goods were synthetic resin, and exclusion from Chapter 40 alone could not justify classification under Chapter 39 without proof that the latter description was met.

---

---

Issues: Whether Hypalon-40 was classifiable as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, or as synthetic resin under Chapter 39.

Analysis: The competing test reports were assessed against the tariff notes and the interpretative rule of classification by the heading to which the goods were most akin. The commercial evidence showed that Hypalon-40 was sold and known in trade as synthetic rubber. The independent laboratory report indicated that it could be vulcanized by sulphur, became an elastic non-thermoplastic substance, and displayed the extensibility and recovery characteristics associated with synthetic rubber under Note 4 to Chapter 40. The departmental report did not test the goods to establish that they were synthetic resin, and exclusion from synthetic rubber did not by itself prove classification under Chapter 39. In trade as well as on the more comprehensive scientific material, the goods answered the description of synthetic rubber.

Conclusion: Hypalon-40 was correctly classifiable as synthetic rubber under Chapter 40 and not as synthetic resin under Chapter 39, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tariff classification turns on technical and commercial identity, the goods are to be classified according to their trade understanding and predominant functional characteristics, and exclusion from one heading does not justify placement in another absent proof that the latter description is satisfied.

---