Polyvinyl alcohol classification upheld as a polyvinyl derivative, with post-polymerisation modification not changing tariff identity.

Polyvinyl alcohol was treated as a derivative of polyvinyl acetate for tariff purposes, and Item 15A(1)(ii) was read broadly enough to include polymeric materials modified after polymerisation. The argument that only products obtained directly by polymerisation or co-polymerisation could fall within the item was rejected, because post-polymerisation modification did not destroy the material's identity as a derivative. On that construction, polyvinyl alcohol remained classifiable under Item 15A(1)(ii), and the separate classification claim as a distinct plastic article did not prevail.

---

---

Issues: Whether polyvinyl alcohol was classifiable as a polyvinyl derivative under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff and, if so, whether it fell outside the exemption claimed under Notification No. 228/-Cus. dated 02.08.1976.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the true character of polyvinyl alcohol and the scope of Item 15A(1)(ii). The contention that only products obtained directly by polymerisation or co-polymerisation could fall within the item was rejected. On the materials relied upon, polyvinyl alcohol was treated as a modified form of polyvinyl acetate, but modification did not destroy its identity as a derivative. The reasoning accepted that polymeric materials may be altered by post-polymerisation modification, yet remain derivatives of the parent polymer. The classification item was therefore read as covering polyvinyl alcohol, and the alternative plea for treatment under a separate article of plastic did not prevail.

Conclusion: Polyvinyl alcohol was correctly assessable under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff, and the appellants were not entitled to succeed on the classification challenge.

---