Customs tariff classification turns on clear entry wording, with polyester chips treated as synthetic resin rather than the residuary item.

Where a customs tariff description is clear, classification must follow the entry itself and trade parlance evidence is unnecessary unless ambiguity exists. Polyester chips were treated as synthetic resin material because the import documents described them as such and an earlier Division Bench view treated polymer chips as synthetic resins for customs classification. On that basis, the goods were correctly classified under Tariff Item 82(3)(a) as artificial or synthetic resin and plastic materials, not under the residuary Tariff Item 87. The levy and assessment were upheld, and the refund claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether polyester chips were classifiable under Tariff Item 82(3)(a) of the Indian Customs Tariff, 1970 as artificial or synthetic resin and plastic materials, or under the residuary Tariff Item 87.

Analysis: The tariff entry was held to be clear and not dependent on trade parlance unless ambiguity exists. Polyester chips were treated as synthetic resin material, and the petitioners themselves had described the imported goods in the bills of entry as synthetic resin. The earlier Division Bench view that polymer chips are synthetic resins was followed as applicable to the customs tariff entry. As no material was produced to support the contrary trade understanding, the refund claim was found untenable.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly assessed under Tariff Item 82(3)(a), not under the residuary Item 87, and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The levy and assessment were upheld, and the petitioner's refund claim was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff description is clear, classification must be made according to the entry itself, and trade parlance evidence is unnecessary unless ambiguity exists.

---