Densified wood classification turns on compression-based density increase; preservation treatment alone is insufficient for tariff entry.

Chemically treated rubber wood was held not to satisfy the tariff concept of densified wood because the treatment was preservation-based rather than compression-based densification. Classification depended on whether the wood, by chemical or physical treatment, had acquired increased density or hardness with improved mechanical strength or resistance to chemical or electrical agencies. The record showed no consistent increase in density and, in some samples, a reduction in density. The HSN Explanatory Notes, treated as persuasive in tariff classification, indicated that densification generally involves contraction of the wood by compression. The departmental specification was treated only as a quality-control reference and was insufficient to establish classification as densified wood.

---

---

Issues: Whether chemically treated rubber wood was classifiable as densified wood under the relevant tariff entry.

Analysis: The classification turned on whether the treated wood had, by chemical or physical treatment, acquired increased density or hardness together with improved mechanical strength or resistance to chemical or electrical agencies. The record showed that the appellant's process was preservation treatment and not compression-based densification. The evidence also indicated that density did not uniformly increase and, in some samples, was even reduced. The HSN Explanatory Notes, which are of persuasive value in tariff classification, indicated that densification involves contraction of the wood, generally by compression, and the material placed before the authority did not adequately establish that the product satisfied that test. The specification relied upon by the department was treated as a quality-control reference and not a conclusive basis for tariff classification. In the absence of sufficient supporting material, the impugned product could not be treated as densified wood.

Conclusion: The product was not classifiable as densified wood, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---