Laminated jute classification under residuary tariff item 68 defeats exemption claim under Notification No. 53/65.

Laminated jute products were treated as classifiable under residuary Tariff Item 68 because lamination did not convert them into jute manufactures under Tariff Item 22-A. The Tribunal followed Sri Ram Jute Mills Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court ruling in Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd., while distinguishing paper-and-jute composite decisions as involving a different classification issue. The exemption claim under Notification No. 53/65 failed because the Madura Coats principle on continuation of a notification applies only where goods remain within the old exempted entry and later move to a new entry by amendment; that situation was not present here.

---

---

Issues: Whether laminated jute products were correctly classifiable under the residuary Tariff Item 68 and, if so, whether the benefit of Notification No. 53/65 could still be claimed.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Sri Ram Jute Mills Ltd., which had relied on the Calcutta High Court ruling in Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. to hold that lamination does not convert jute goods into jute manufactures for the purposes of Tariff Item 22-A. It distinguished the line of cases dealing with paper and jute composites, and held that those decisions turned on a different classification controversy and did not govern the present dispute. On the exemption question, the Tribunal held that the Madura Coats principle about the continuation of a notification applies only where the product remains within the scope of the old exempted entry and later shifts to a new entry by amendment; here, the goods were not held to be classifiable under Item 22-A in the first place, so the exemption issue did not arise.

Conclusion: Laminated jute products were held to fall under Tariff Item 68, and the claim to exemption under Notification No. 53/65 failed.

---